Tuesday, 19 August 2025

TUESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2025

TUESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): ‘E ‘Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau taa’imālie ‘i ho’o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu’i ange mu’a ‘a e Tu’i mo tataki ange ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá, ‘aki ‘a e poto faka-e-‘Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū ko e ‘uhí ko e mo’ui pea mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me’á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ‘o ho ‘Alo pē ‘e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ko homau fakamo’ui. ‘Ēmeni.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Jade Steel requesting that the House urge the Government not to increase glyphosate residue limits in food, and to hold an independent reassessment of glyphosate’s safety.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered three papers.

CLERK:

International Labor Organisation, report of delegates to the International Labour Conference

Government Response to Report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Carjam Online Ltd

Referral of the petition of Nic Mills.

SPEAKER: The papers are published under the authority of the House. Two select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill

Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of two bills.

CLERK:

Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill, introduction

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2), introduction.

Personal Explanations

General Debate—Comment Made During Debate

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to make a personal statement.

SPEAKER: Generally, you have to outline “concerning”; personal statement concerning. Sorry, the rules have changed a little bit.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s about a comment I made on 2 April this year in this House.

SPEAKER: OK. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On 2 April this year, more than 4 months ago, in a general debate, I made a comment which on reflection I should withdraw and apologise for. I said, “The number of frauds committed by the Green Party in the last election knows no bounds.” That remark was in the heat of a noisy, heckling period, and I misread my notes. Everyone in this House at the time would understand it was clearly not the Green Party being referenced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a recent report from Fitch, the international ratings agency, affirming New Zealand’s AA+—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Points of order should be—I was going to say relevant, which is probably not the right way to put it, but let’s give the Minister a chance to say one or two things before there’s too much comment. The Hon Nicola Willis, start again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’ve seen a recent report from Fitch, the international ratings agency, affirming New Zealand’s AA+ foreign currency rating, with a stable outlook. New Zealand also has AA+ from S&P and a AAA rating from Moody’s. These ratings are important. They affect the cost of Government borrowing. For members who don’t have the dollar figures off the top of their heads, I can confirm that the Government’s interest bill is forecast to be $9.5 billion this year, compared with an average of $3.5 billion in the 2010s.

Dan Bidois: How does New Zealand’s interest bill compare to other items of Government spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, obviously, $9.5 billion is a lot of money, despite some people saying, as recently as this morning, that it’s relatively small. To put it in context, members, it would fund four Waterview Tunnels and three Transmission Gullies each and every year. Putting it another way, the amount we pay each year in interest would roughly fund the annual operating costs of the Defence Force, the Police, Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, and the Customs Service put together.

Dan Bidois: How does our credit rating affect the costs of borrowing in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A sovereign credit rating is a measure of how likely the Government is to default or how worthy it is to receive new credit. A downgrade would result in higher interest costs for the Government, as lenders demand greater compensation for risk. It would also result in higher interest costs for households and businesses, as New Zealand would be seen by lenders as a more risky proposition overall. New Zealand is one of only 12 countries in the world to have a AA+ or AAA rating from Fitch. That means we are able to borrow on world markets at reasonable rates. Any change to that would put extra costs on New Zealand households, businesses, and taxpayers.

Dan Bidois: What did Fitch have to say about New Zealand's ability to maintain its current credit rating?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Fitch report sends a very clear warning. It says New Zealand's current rating is underpinned by the current Government's strong commitment to fiscal consolidation and an expectation that debt as a percentage of GDP will start to reduce. But it warns that “Evidence of a weakening in the culture of fiscal commitment to fiscal responsibility would affect creditworthiness”. It says that “Lower confidence of Government debt reducing as a percentage of GDP could lead to a downgrade”. We cannot take our good credit rating for granted. Those who seek to ramp up Government spending and debt should think hard about what that would do to New Zealand's hard-won international reputation and to borrowing costs that ultimately fall on everyday New Zealand households, businesses, and taxpayers.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has his Government prioritised pay increases of up to 80 percent for board directors, whilst offering schoolteachers a pay increase of only 1 percent—less than the rate of inflation, and effectively a pay cut?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they’re two separate issues. One is, we need to make sure—when we're spending a huge amount of Government spending—that our entities are well governed and well managed, and so that is about what director pay has been adjusted for. With respect to the second leg of the question around teacher pay, I think he has the numbers wrong.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he really in a position to say that other people have got their numbers wrong when it comes to schoolteachers’ pay?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I certainly would think that that member is not in a position to say he’s got numbers wrong. He is the $66 billion man that doesn’t know the cost of the debt that he ran up; he doesn’t know the cost of the ferry projects; he doesn’t know the cost of the Dunedin hospital project; or the debt that was run up under Kāinga Ora.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise a $3 billion tax cut for landlords, whilst cutting funding for emergency housing and increasing the number of people who are living homeless on the streets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, because we actually want people out of motels, and, as the member will understand, in his time of Government, homelessness went up 34 percent despite spending a billion dollars on emergency housing. We have got good management, good Ministers; they’ve done the work, and they’ve managed to get families with kids into warm, dry homes. That’s a good thing; I’d hope that member would celebrate that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise a $300 million tax cut for tobacco companies, whilst his Government is allowing the cost of visiting a—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First): Point of order. No-one should be allowed to get up in this House, put out a shibboleth, and base the question on that. How on earth can a $300 million tax cut—and it was $200 million. How could that, if the tax cut came from a reduction in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco, and a reduction in the sales was a reduction in the tariffs going to the Government, amount to what he’s just claimed it to be at the beginning of his question? And they’ve done it for the umpteenth time.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it is true that—

Hon Nicola Willis: Give him some advice! Surely you get it.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Ooh, Nicola!

SPEAKER: One voice at the moment, thank you, Dr Woods. It is true that assertions like that should not be made in questions. Equally, though, if that is the case, then I think the answer the Prime Minister gives would certainly be able to rebut any inappropriate suggestion.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was interrupted in the middle. Can I ask the question so that the Prime Minister can actually know what the question is?

SPEAKER: Let me put it this way. If you’re going to ask the question again, ask it within the confines of Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It is!

SPEAKER: No—you made an assertion that was not in the nature of a question. I’m sure you can work that out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government change the—

SPEAKER: No, no—hang on. All calm, no-one else speaking.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Why did the Government change the tax rules around tobacco, resulting in the Government taking $300 million less in revenue, whilst allowing the cost of visiting a doctor to nudge closer to a hundred dollars for everyday Kiwi families trying to stay healthy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, it’s not surprising to me the member doesn’t understand the difference between a contingency put aside for a loss of excise revenue, and tax—that they are two quite different things. With respect to the second leg of the question, that is why this Government is spending a huge amount—it’s spending more than any previous Government in the history of New Zealand—into healthcare: $17 billion extra last year, 7 percent more this year, and expanding urgent care and more primary care for people to be able to see their GPs in a much quicker fashion.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister confirm that rents for New Zealanders have actually fallen since the Government made the tax rules for rental property the same as every other part of the economy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes. Under the previous Government, rents went up $180 a week; under this Government, they’re down $5 a week.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. There was nothing wrong with the question, Sir, but the answer certainly is in breach of the guidance that you’ve given Ministers consistently throughout this term.

SPEAKER: I actually hadn’t heard enough of the answer to leap to that conclusion. But I think the answer should be within the bounds of Standing Orders.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Rents have proudly fallen $5 a week. That is very different from the record of the previous Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise funding for his failed FamilyBoost policy, which has resulted in not one single family receiving the full $250 a fortnight he promised them, whilst cutting entitlements to free early childhood education that would have benefited tens of thousands of Kiwi families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I thank the member for his regular questions on FamilyBoost, because we want to tell as many New Zealanders as possible to jump on www.myir.ird.govt.nz. With our expanded settings, we think there'll be another 22,000 families that will be entitled to FamilyBoost support, and that is a good thing for low and middle income working New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise over half a billion dollars in tax breaks for multinational tech companies like Google and Facebook—

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Was there a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a question.

SPEAKER: OK. My apologies, I didn't see that the member rose. We’ll continue with that and then I'll come to the member.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government prioritise over half a billion dollars in tax breaks for multinational tech companies like Google and Facebook, whilst 72,000 Kiwis have given up on his leadership and left the country in the past year, the highest since 2012?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I'd say to the member that we are wanting to grow this economy. One of the ways we do that is we make sure that we get more innovation and technology into this country so we can create high-paying jobs for New Zealanders into the future. That's why this Government has a great economic plan about building our education; getting rid of the red tape and the bureaucracy; and making sure we embrace more trade and investment, more science, technology, innovation, and modern reliable infrastructure. If we can do that, we will lift collective living standards and raise the wages and incomes of all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister what his Government's view is when someone regards the reduction in tobacco and cigarette use which leads to a $300 million decline in tax revenue to the Government as being a $300 million gift to the tobacco industry—what's his view when somebody makes that stupid statement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is a total mischaracterisation of the policy of this Government. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House will resume.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We have sat here for month after month after month while those members have repeated that lie in this House. I am seeking to correct it. Why do you think it's a matter of no importance?

SPEAKER: Well, I don't think it's a matter of no importance. That's why your question stood and the Prime Minister was called to answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week you ejected a member and named them for saying that they were struggling to find members with a backbone. How is accusing other members of repeatedly lying in the House any different?

SPEAKER: Well, it is quite different in my head. One was directed very personally at members of Parliament. The other was a question about repeating a lie. Now, if you're taking a point of order on that, then—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.

SPEAKER: Wait on. What I would say to you is that—oh, I don’t like using that saying. The member knows that there is a remedy by way of the Standing Orders—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: —hang on; wait until I’m finished—to have that corrected.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It has never been the case that where a member has called another member or group of members liars that they have to raise a privilege complaint to have the Speaker do something about that.

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry. You're pushing it too far. To suggest that there is something out there that is a lie and is being repeated is not an allegation against any individual member or group of members. Do you have a supplementary?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government spend less on infrastructure projects in 2024 than in the year before, leaving Kiwis out of work, whilst increasing Government spending on jobseeker benefits for those very same Kiwis who lost their jobs because of his Government's decisions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I've said to the member before, the construction industry has certainly been very challenged because his Government drove up interest rates, and we're bringing them down. We now have $207 billion worth of projects in the infrastructure pipeline. We've got $6 billion happening before Christmas. We are relentlessly focused on growth. I'd just say to that member: reverse your decision on fast track, get in behind, support the construction industry, and stop the crocodile tears.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government choose to increase the minimum wage by below the rate of inflation for two years in a row, meaning minimum wage workers have had their pay cut in real terms, two years in a row, while Kiwis continue to struggle with the cost of living, a crisis that's getting worse, not better under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that's exactly why this Government supported tax relief for the first time in 14 years for low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn't deeply ideological; it was just lifting the tax thresholds. Any party could have got on board with that. It was common sense. Sadly, his party didn't. If he backed low and middle income working New Zealanders, he would have supported that, he'd support FamilyBoost, he'd support fast track, and he'd support repealing the oil and gas ban.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he says that the economy and the country are turning the corner, while food prices continue to skyrocket, unemployment continues to go up, more and more businesses go broke, and hundreds of Kiwis leave the country permanently every day, why won't he simply admit that his Government is all “delulu” and no “solulu”?

SPEAKER: In so much as the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, could he repeat the question.

SPEAKER: I don't think we need the question repeated. We’ll move on to question No. 3.

Question No. 3—Workplace Relations and Safety

3. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace”; if so, does she think that the submission made by Pay Equity Aotearoa urging the United Nations to investigate whether the changes to pay equity law breach the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is consistent with this statement?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, I stand by my statement, and I am confident that changes this Government has made to pay equity legislation are consistent with the convention the member has asked about. In particular, I am satisfied that this Government remains compliant with our international obligations as the new pay equity model continues to ensure women receive equal pay for work of equal value.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree with New Zealand Council of Trade Unions secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges that “Cancelling pay equity for more than 180,000 working women was a flagrant attack on their economic and political rights. It also breaches our international commitments to uphold women’s rights”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, I do not.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree that her Equal Pay Amendment Act breaches the following three fundamental human rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No. The acting Attorney-General considered the bill and found it was consistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Supplementary—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: One more.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you. If she is truly committed to denouncing sex-based discrimination in the workplace, why have five unions taken the Government to court over her changes to pay equity laws, might she say?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Well, I’m not responsible for the unions, unfortunately for our people in the Opposition—that could be quite fun. The difficulty here is I’m only responsible for the legislation that underpins the Equal Pay Act, not the unions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, when Pay Equity Aotearoa approached the United Nations (UN), which country did they say they were from?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I reiterate, I’m not responsible for the unions or any representation to the UN.

SPEAKER: Mariameno Kapa-Kingi [Interruption] and no other voices.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can she explain why the Government has chosen to spend millions of dollars fighting wāhine workers in court when that money could have been spent on delivering pay equity?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Government hasn’t chosen to do that. I don’t believe there is a case at the High Court yet. I believe that there are members of unions who have suggested to media they may take a court case, but I’m not of the opinion, or have been led to the opinion, that that has happened yet.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister accept responsibility for what Dame Judy McGregor has called “the most significant roll back of women’s rights in over a generation”; if so, will she commit to righting this wrong by repealing her Equal Pay Amendment Act?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, because there’s something that many members of this House continue to fail to recognise: the Equal Pay Act stays; pay equity stays. There is still a process for equal pay and pay equity. This Government is committed to finding and stamping out sex-based discrimination, and the processes put in place by this Government will allow that to happen.

Question No. 4—Education

4. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made regarding lifting educational achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Today, I announced our writing action plan to supercharge writing achievement and better support young people. The latest curriculum insights and progress study data, collected in term 4 2024, provides a baseline snapshot of achievement prior to the introduction of our education reform programme this year. It shows that 24 percent of year 8 students are at expectation to experience success at high school in writing. Parents know this Government has established a clear pattern of responding to data with comprehensive plans, like the literacy guarantee so children can learn to read, maths action plans so they can do maths, and, today, we’ve launched our Make It Write action plan to lift writing achievement.

Carl Bates: How will she support students who need additional help with their writing?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Our education reforms are already under way in literacy and numeracy, especially with literacy starting this year with the new curriculum, and structured literacy. But, in addition to this, we are introducing a suite of targeted initiatives to help students accelerate their learning in writing. We’re doing this with a new writing acceleration tool which will help support 120,000 students in years 6 to 8. From term 1 next year, the tool will support teachers to accelerate students’ progress through regular opportunities to practise and refine their skills. We can see from the data that intervention is needed, surgically, at years 6 to 8 for students who need extra help and who do not have the full benefit of our education reforms.

Carl Bates: How will she support schools with implementing structured literacy approaches?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Many students are arriving at high school without the literacy skills they need to succeed. Teachers have been calling for training in structured literacy to help kids catch up, because this isn’t a Government prepared to sit by and watch while kids get left behind. We’re funding training—announcing today—for a structured literacy intervention teacher in every intermediate and secondary school, for professional learning and development for those teachers in structured literacy. The training will be tailored for older students and extends on what is already available for those teaching in years 0 to 6. The teachers will be able to learn through in-person workshops and ongoing coaching over 12 months. A huge thankyou to Lifting Literacy Aotearoa for proposing the policy and for being such strong advocates for structured literacy.

Carl Bates: What else has she announced as part of the writing action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One of the strongest indicators of reading capability is handwriting. When a child can write fluently, they don’t have to think about forming their letters; they’re freed up to think more about what they want to write. To support this, we are providing new handwriting teacher guidance to support explicit teaching from years 0 to 8, and this aligns with our refreshed English knowledge-rich curriculum. It is a fully updated evidence-based resource that reflects the latest research in classroom practice. Every student deserves the chance to succeed at school and beyond, and our education reforms are helping make sure that every student has that chance.

Hon Shane Jones: To the Minister of Education, can she give the House any updates as to—after her announcements—what’s been the response by the Labour Party Opposition spokesperson on education?

SPEAKER: No, no. She has no responsibility for anything that anyone says other than herself.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order! It’s a matter of some significance, and I’m asking for the Minister’s response. I’m not asking her to talk on behalf of the Opposition. Surely, she’s capable of owning her own response.

SPEAKER: Yes, and the member also knows that it’s contrary to Standing Orders to use question time to design a question designed to attack the Opposition, and that’s, I think, where we were heading.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement about the Cook Strait ferries that “I’ve delivered” when she has spent $671 million and has delivered nothing?

Hon Nicola Willis: Because even after including the costs associated with cancelling Labour’s failed iReX project, this Government is going to deliver a safe, reliable service for far less than Labour’s bloated project would have cost.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that the additional 16,000 unemployed people “shouldn’t take it personally” when there are reports of 1,000 people applying for one job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as was canvassed extensively in the House last week in the other auditionee for the finance role Ginny Andersen’s questions, the statement that I made was simply to—

SPEAKER: No, no. Stop and start the question again without the little barb in there. I wasn’t referring to Barb over here either.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, as my statement in its full context made clear, my point was that those people who have lost their jobs shouldn’t take it as a reflection on their own abilities; it is a reflection of an economy which is shedding jobs at a lower rate than was forecast prior to the election under the previous Government’s policies, an economy that is recovering from an extended downturn after a period of very high inflation and high interest rates. My message, to those people, that I shared in the statement, in its full context, is that the Government is working hard every day to ensure there are more job opportunities in the future.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, of the $671 million mentioned by the questioner, is she aware that $424 million—that’s $424 million—had already been wasted on Project iReX before this Government even came into power, and that despite all that extraordinary expense, we will save the taxpayer billions with our ferry solution?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Nah, it’s just a lie.

SPEAKER: No, stop right there. OK. You’re trying to make a point. The point is not very well made, and I will—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I thought it was.

SPEAKER: Well, you might think it is, but it’s not a good time to be interrupting. I will refer to Speaker’s Rulings quite harshly if it continues.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters’ questions contained an assertion in them, which he has objected to earlier. It is our contention that the assertion in that question is a lie. There is no difference in saying that to the assertion that he made before that something I had asserted was a lie.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, I am happy to refute that allegation that what I’m questioning is based on a lie, because we can itemise—with particularity, to the last cent—the $471 million they spent before we even got the job.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That was a point badly made.

SPEAKER: That is. Look, I think I’ve said what I’ve said on this, and I think I’d ask members to show some restraint in what they might offer by way of interjections.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, I understand that to be correct. We won’t take responsibility for the mess we inherited with Project iReX. We do take responsibility for cleaning up that mess. It’s the putting right that counts.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that “National will take action to get food prices under control” when food prices have increased 5 percent overall, butter is up 42 percent, beef is up 25 percent, and milk is up 16 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because the facts make it clear that our action to get food prices under control has resulted in food-price inflation reducing from its high, in June 2023, of 12.3 percent, down considerably to 5 percent in the latest update, after a period in which, for many, many quarters, from March 2022 to December 2023, the rate of food-price inflation was far higher than it currently is. We have had success in bringing inflation, and indeed food-price inflation, down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why does she stand by her statement that an average income household with young children will be better off up to $250 a fortnight when she can’t find a single family that received the full $250?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because rather than just scoring political points, I think about the 60,000 families who, as a consequence of the FamilyBoost policy, have received additional income to their households. I think of the Uber driver who stopped me outside Parliament to say to me, “Nicola, can I have a photo? The FamilyBoost policy has made an extraordinary difference to my family.” I care more about the difference we are making to him and his family than your barb. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right, that is the last unruly outburst we’ll have today.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why should Kiwis believe her when she can’t deliver ferries, can’t deliver jobs, can’t deliver lower food costs, and can’t find a single family who has received the full $250?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because on our watch, inflation is down, interest rates are down, growth is returning, and we are working very hard to make the difference to the New Zealanders who we understand have been through an extremely difficult economic period, who we feel very deeply for, and who are the reason why we are pursuing policies to make this economy far, far stronger. We regret the recklessness of the previous administration, but we are working very hard to clean it up.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an article of 15 February 2024, where, at a select committee where Arena Williams was in attendance, KiwiRail told the Labour Party precisely the figure that I gave—about their expenditure before this present Government even took office—on that matter.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is great news for the Opposition. So it’s now in order for us to seek leave to table articles, is it?

SPEAKER: No, I probably should have thought a bit more about that, you’re quite right. But it wasn’t an article; it was actually a commentary to a select committee.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He said article. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. I take the point, but the moment has passed.

Question No. 6—Internal Affairs

6. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What increased efficiencies has she seen across the Department of Internal Affairs?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I have seen some fantastic news that the number of people waiting for an outcome of their citizenship by grant application is at a five-year low, and the department is now picking up applications from just two months ago, compared to 13 months when I first started as the Minister. While application numbers have remained relatively constant over the past year, the department has made a big push to clear the backlog and has increased efficiency through cross-skilling staff and improving processes. I’ve also seen the department change to use English first in its logo and communications, at a low cost.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How many people are currently waiting—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Start again.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Thank you. How many people are currently waiting for citizenship by grant?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Currently, there are just over 12,700 people waiting for a decision on their citizenship application, down from a high point of 37,690 in April 2022—a 66 percent reduction. These are not just numbers; these are individuals who contribute to our economy and our community. I’m sure the department’s rapid improvement in efficiency will be welcomed by those who wish to gain New Zealand citizenship and call themselves Kiwis.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other efficiencies has she seen from the Department of Internal Affairs?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’ve instructed the department to use English first in its logo and communications to the public to make it easier for people to engage with the department. I also made it clear that this should not come at a large cost or use of staff time, to be respectful of taxpayer money, and I’m pleased that the department has completed its rebrand for less than $1,000 and very little staff time.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What further efficiencies does she expect to see in the Department of Internal Affairs?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am continuing to work with the department to identify areas of efficiency, including how the National Library and Archives New Zealand can better work together to share resources, minimise duplication, and reduce cost. Getting value for taxpayer money while maintaining a good standard of service is one of my top priorities for the internal affairs portfolio.

Tabling of Documents—Leave Not Put

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, sir. I seek leave to table a document which shows Christopher Luxon is the least popular Prime Minister in 30 years.

SPEAKER: Well, given the pleas made before, I'd have to ask: is that a publicly available document?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I didn't think it had to be, sir.

SPEAKER: No, I just made it clear: I made a mistake; it does have to be.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Oh, so point of order. If you’re now conceding, sir, that you made a mistake, how then can you say that the motion is passed? Shouldn't the question be put again?

SPEAKER: No, no, I said the motion was agreed, and once I've done that, it moves on. There’s a flow to these things. You can disrupt the House all you like; I'm not changing my mind. If you can tell me your document is not publicly available, then it can obviously have the leave put. [Interruption] No, no, you're missing the point. It's about your document now. It's publicly available?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, it is now.

SPEAKER: Good, well, stop trifling in my direction.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. There was a conversation going on over here that shouldn’t be. Please start your question again.

7. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree that all rangatahi should be able to grow up in a stable and supported home; and, if so, what is he doing to help the over 50 percent of homeless people under the age of 25?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is why this Government is proud of the record that it's building in housing. We are doing everything we can to make housing more affordable. It starts with the planning laws to actually enable the supply of more houses to be built. It goes to the rental market where we actually have rents down $5 a week compared to $180. It goes to the social and the State house wait-list, which is down 6,000 people. It goes to the emergency housing accommodation, where 2,134 kids are now in warm, dry homes. That's a good outcome. There's always more to do, but we've got a good housing team here working very hard.

Hon Marama Davidson: So does he think that emergency housing rejections increasing by 386 percent in the last year is contributing to increasing rates of homelessness, with young people leaving care or custody finding it increasingly difficult to access emergency accommodation and living rough on the streets instead?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as that member would understand, in her former role as the Minister for homelessness—where people without shelter increased 37 percent despite a billion dollars being spent on emergency housing—homelessness is something that no Kiwi wants to see. It's an incredibly difficult and complex issue that needs to be resolved. People often have complex needs. That is why this Government makes aside $550 million worth of support to organisations to support people with complex needs, and that's why the Ministry of Social Development services are available, and it's also why the Ministers are looking at what more they can do to make any tweaks to support people who are in that situation.

Hon Marama Davidson: So will he commit to a fast release fund to support community organisations responding to the crisis our tamariki and rangatahi are facing, with a focus on prioritising investment into alternative models to motel-based emergency housing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, this Government's record on emergency housing has been very impressive in terms of the way the work has been undertaken, the way that we have moved children out of motel accommodation into warm, dry houses, after a Labour legacy of housing which was abysmal. But again, the Minister is talking to people in the sector and is working with them and is open for any tweaks that we can make to support people in homeless situations.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to Māhera Maihi, chief executive of Mā Te Huruhuru, who observed, “There are currently no strategies or policies to support rangatahi in transitioning from temporary accommodation into permanent housing, leaving a gap many fall through.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I've explained to the member before, there has been good work on reducing the State house wait-list, there has been good work on reducing people in emergency housing, and the Ministers are open for any further tweaks that they can make.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he say to the rangatahi who have lost count of how many friends have died while experiencing homelessness, some being described as “full of life and potential, but they died without a safe and stable home.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that's an incredibly tragic situation. I just say it is not something to be politicised. This is a Government that is fixing up a failed legacy on housing for home ownership, for the rental market, for the State and social housing market, and as I've said before, Ministers are working with stakeholders in the sector to see what tweaks they can make as well. But to take 2,124 children out of motels—which a Labour-Green Government was quite happy to leave them in—it's good progress.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, Standing Order 390 “Content of questions”: how can that possibly have passed muster with you to have deliberately exploited, for shallow political gain, the death, maybe there otherwise, and then attributed that as a responsibility of the Government? That is not consistent with Standing Order 390.

SPEAKER: Well, I'd suggest you get hold of the Hansard afterwards, because the way I heard it, it was a statement of fact or of a circumstance that existed and a question about what the Prime Minister thought of it, and what he was doing about it. If you can't ask a question around that, there would be very few questions that could ever be asked in the House. I know that that is a concern for some of your colleagues.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 50 percent of people on the social housing register need a one-bedroom unit, but only around 12 percent of Kainga Ora’s stock is one-bedroom, and the Government has recently changed the funding settings to make sure that the Government is commissioning and building more one-bedroom units to help those who need a house?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that is exactly the situation. It's a function of a previous Government that didn't understand the people it's trying to help that led to a four-fold increase—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. It seems almost every question time, Sir, we have to go through the same thing. This was a question from their own side. The answer was given immediately, he then went on to provide his own opinion and commentary on what the previous Government did. It shouldn't be allowed. If we want to maintain—

SPEAKER: Sorry—sit down. Because I'm pretty much over this. The reality is, and I've said it to this House a number of times, a Government can refer to situations that they have taken over and that they are dealing with. That is not unreasonable. The question itself was totally in order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Sir, I wasn’t disputing the question.

SPEAKER: I realise that, and I've just told you the answer is in order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, in that case, may I respectfully ask that you reflect on that; maybe check the Hansard. Because that was not a reflection of what the Government has, as a matter of fact, inherited; it was the Prime Minister's opinion and a description of what the previous Government did—the very thing you have told them not to do.

SPEAKER: And with all due respect, he started his answer with “Yes, I can confirm” or words to that effect. But I will look at the Hansard and I will come back to the member.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by all his actions in preparing the health system for winter 2025?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Acting Minister of Health): Yes. That is why we now have more doctors and nurses employed at Health New Zealand since coming into Government and why we brought back the health target for 95 percent of patients to be admitted, discharged, or transferred from an emergency department within six hours. This was a critical step after performance had fallen sharply between the years 2017-2018 and 2023-2024, dropping from 89.2 percent to 67.5 percent.

Hon Peeni Henare: Has he seen any reports that Māori and people from high-deprivation neighbourhoods have a higher rate of hospital admissions for heart disease; and does he agree that these admissions are preventable?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes, there has been pressure on the emergency departments for a range of issues. It is wintertime, and that's why we've made our expectation very clear to Health New Zealand that they have winter-preparedness plans in place to address surge capacity.

Hon Peeni Henare: Why is the cost of general practitioner visits to diagnose and treat heart disease higher under his Government?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what we do know is, sadly, too many Kiwis can't get to their GPs because books were closed or it took too long, so that's why we've invested heavily into our GPs, not only to open up books, to ensure that people can now be seen 24/7—digitally online—but we’ve also capped the co-payment at 3 percent, to ensure that it is affordable for all Kiwis.

Hon Peeni Henare: When 1,500 people were treated in the corridor of Middlemore Hospital in a single month, how many were there because they couldn't afford an early GP visit?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: There will be a range of reasons why people turn up to the emergency department. The questioner is right: we need to ensure that we get primary care right; we need to open that up—that is not only Monday to Friday, 9 to 5, but also after hours. This Government has invested significantly into after-hours and telehealth—in fact, a record extra $16.68 billion over three Budgets to address that issue.

Question No. 9—Building and Construction

9. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcement has the Government made about the building consent system?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Yesterday, we announced the biggest change to our building consent system since the Building Act came into force in 2004. First, we’re putting responsibility for bad building work where it belongs by scrapping the current joint and several liability model and replacing it with proportionate liability. Second, we will remove regulatory barriers, which will support New Zealand’s 66 separate council building consent authorities to voluntarily consolidate and join up their functions.

Ryan Hamilton: Why does the system need to change?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Councils are currently understandably hesitant to sign off building work that Kiwis desperately need. This is because they can be left carrying the can for the full cost of building defects, even when they are not responsible to that extent. Ratepayers pay twice: once through slow, inefficient consenting and again when councils cover for cowboy builders who’ve ridden off into the sunset, saddling the ratepayer with the bill. With the 66 different building consent authorities, we have that many different interpretations of the single building code. Builders face needless delays, and modular home builders hit barriers when they cross a regional line. The system is broken currently. We will fix it and get more homes built.

Ryan Hamilton: Will homeowners still be protected under the new system?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Protecting homeowners must always come first. We’re backing the shift by exploring consumer protections like home warranty schemes, which are mandatory in Australian states, and professional indemnity insurance for high-risk professions. We’re cracking down on cowboys by giving licensing boards more teeth, creating a new licence class for wet areas, and toughening penalties for those who cut corners. My colleague the Hon Scott Simpson is leading work to tackle phoenixing, where dodgy operators shut one company one day and then reopen the next under a different name. Importantly, people are less likely to do shoddy work in the first instance if they know that they’ll end up bearing the cost.

Ryan Hamilton: What feedback has the Minister received about this announcement?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback has been clear and overwhelmingly positive. I was very pleased to discuss this early today at a function in the House attended by a number of parliamentary colleagues with the New Zealand Chinese Building Industry Association, a few of whose members are still here. Local Government New Zealand, meanwhile, said that the changes will have “an instant and positive impact on housing growth; councils will be in a better position to consent more efficiently, with less legal risk borne by local government—and therefore … ratepayers.” The Building Officials Institute of New Zealand, meanwhile, called the reforms “a win for ratepayers, homeowners, investors, and the wider economy.” Finally, the New Zealand Certified Builders described them as “the most significant change for the building industry in a generation, a long time coming, and welcomed by industry.”

Cameron Luxton: How does this announcement help fulfil the National-ACT coalition agreement for building consents, and what does this announcement mean for tradies?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I thank the member for the question, and I acknowledge that the New Zealand ACT coalition agreement contains an item around changing liability settings, reflecting ACT Party policy going into the last election. The policy and, indeed, the coalition agreement was around exploring allowing builders to opt out of needing a building consent if they were to have long-term insurance for the building work. This announcement is a key step in that right direction, putting more accountability on the individual tradesperson and increasing the uptake of insurance products.

Question No. 10—Public Service

10. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her statement about public sector industrial action that “there’s going to be a lot of options that we’re looking at as a government”; if so, what specific options is the Government considering?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service): The answer is yes. The Government has a duty to all New Zealanders to ensure our critical public services—like the hospitals and schools that they rely on every day—will not be unnecessarily disrupted. We are looking for ways to improve the bargaining system, because the right to strike is important, but so is the right for students to learn and for patients to access the healthcare they need.

Camilla Belich: Will she rule out altering or diminishing teachers’ right to strike?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I certainly haven’t been considering altering or diminishing the right to strike. I have, however, suggested that it’s always good, if you’re going to be bargaining, to be at the bargaining table, not organising a marketing campaign for a strike that’s unnecessary.

Camilla Belich: Will she, then, rule out altering or diminishing nurses’ or any public sector worker’s right to strike?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I’ve made it very clear that we’re looking at how we can strengthen the bargaining system so that people might have better options available before racing off to strike, such as, for instance, mediation or any other sorts of facilitated bargaining. I think most people would understand that the people who are hurt the most in these situations are often quite vulnerable people: either children, or they are patients in the healthcare system. I am not actually ruling out things, but I am saying that nobody is considering removing the right to strike.

Camilla Belich: Has she requested or received any advice from the Public Service Commission or any other agency regarding compulsory arbitration for teachers, nurses, or firefighters?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the member is giving me all these new ideas today! I don’t think I have actually asked for that, but I’m always happy to take her ideas and consider them.

Camilla Belich: How can she say that bargaining requires genuine engagement when, during a period of bargaining, she refuses to rule out measures that would limit the ability to take strike action?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think I have pretty much said I am not looking to rule out strike action at all. I’m not sure quite what she’s talking about.

Camilla Belich: Why do appointees to Crown boards deserve an up to 80 percent pay rise but teachers struggling with the cost of living get a 1 percent pay offer?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well of course it’s a framework based on the fact that very few people are qualified to do the role of Crown board entity directors or chairs and the fact that some of these people are paid less than $30,000 for undertaking enormous work on behalf of the taxpayers of New Zealand; responsible, in some cases, for multimillions of dollars—hundreds of millions, even billions—of dollars of taxpayer funds. So I actually think it’s a matter that we do—and we’re competing with the private sector, so these are all issues. It’s sort of unfair to equate one position with that of others, but I do think that they’re not actually related.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware which of his Government’s decisions came into effect in August 2024 which have resulted in the decline of emergency housing applications rising from 4 percent to 32 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I am aware of is that we have moved 2,124 children out of damp, dank motels into warm, dry houses, and, of course, that’s a good thing because it means kids have housing security, and they can attend schools and get good medical treatment on the basis of that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under his Government’s decisions, the recorded number of New Zealanders sleeping rough in Auckland alone has nearly doubled, from 426 in September 2024 to 809 in May 2025, as Auckland Council reports?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member will be aware, our homeless data is not great. No New Zealander likes seeing people in a homeless situation. That is why our Government is talking to the stakeholders and open to making tweaks if we can help support people in homeless situations, but, as the member would understand, from the previous Labour-Greens Government—where homelessness went up 34 percent despite a billion dollars being spent on emergency housing—these are not simple issues. They are complex, and they are often people who have very complex needs that need proper support.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So when will the Government reverse its decisions to tighten eligibility criteria for emergency housing, which has evidentially seen an explosion in homelessness across every community in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s a Government that’s taken 6,000 people off the State social housing wait-list after it increased four times; it’s a Government that has lowered rents by $5 a week rather than up $180 a week; it’s a Government that’s reinventing our planning laws so that we can get more houses built and more affordably; and it’s a Government that’s open to looking at what else we can do around homelessness to support people in that situation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of any person’s life circumstances that have ever been improved by them being denied emergency housing and being forced to sleep on the street?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that spends $550 million with a range of service organisations to support people in difficult circumstances; it’s a Government that has a Ministry of Social Development agency that is actually available and will always offer support to people who need it; but it is a Government that is fixing the failed housing legacy of the previous Greens-Labour Government. This is a Government that can stand proud to say we are building more houses and making it easier to do so with planning laws. We have got rents going backwards, if not stable. We have got more people coming off the State house wait-list, which is a good thing, and we have moved 2,124 children out of motel rooms, through Priority One, into warm, dry houses. Yes, we don’t like seeing homelessness—no New Zealander does—and we’re open for further setting changes if we need to.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister think of an example of somebody’s life being made better by dependence on Government, and does this Government want something better for the future of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well it’s a Government that’s working hard to lift the collective living standards of all New Zealanders, and the way that we are doing that is by making sure our kids have an outstanding education system and by making sure we embrace more science and technology and add value to the products and services we sell the world. More infrastructure, less red and green tape, and more trade and investment—those are the things that will lift our collective living standards and lift incomes for all New Zealanders.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When—if ever—does the Prime Minister intend to respond to my multiple invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who his Government’s decisions have made homeless?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what’s important is that the Ministers for infrastructure and social housing have been engaging with the sector, and they have said publicly that they are very open to looking at any tweaks that they can make to improve the homeless situation in New Zealand. But I’d just say to the member: when you have 6,000 people that were on a wait-list waiting for a State house and they’re no longer on the wait-list, that is a good thing. When you have rents, having gone up $180 a week, now down $5 a week, that is good progress, and when you have 2,124 kids out of motel rooms and into proper houses, through Kāinga Ora or through community housing providers, that’s a good thing.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, from 2018 to 2023, $1.4 billion was spent by the Government on emergency housing but homelessness increased?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, there was over a billion dollars spent on emergency housing, and homelessness went up 37 percent, as the previous Greens member who was the Minister for homelessness understands. This is a complex issue.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the Pages Road Bridge?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport): Last week, I was pleased to announce that the New Zealand Transport Agency board has endorsed the business case for the $75.4 million Pages Road Bridge renewal project and approved co-funding from the National Land Transport Fund. The Government will be funding $38.5 million to support the replacement of the Pages Road Bridge. This is an important piece of infrastructure for the people of Christchurch and great news for Christchurch east. I thank all members of Parliament for their strong advocacy for this important infrastructure project.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. All right, now you can start.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does the Pages Road Bridge need to be replaced?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The Pages Road Bridge is nearly 100 years old and is approaching its end of life. It carries more than 13,000 vehicles a day and is the main point of access between the New Brighton and Southshore communities and the rest of Christchurch. The bridge was actually last strengthened in 2015 to extend it lifespan and, as a critical evacuation route, the importance of the Pages Road Bridge renewal project was recognised by this Government with its inclusion in the 2024-27 National Land Transport Programme.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What are the next steps for the replacement of the bridge?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Now, this project was the highest-priority capital improvement project for the Christchurch City Council, and until we came into power, no taxpayer funding has been allocated to it. Now that the business case and the co-funding have been approved, the council expects the project to begin construction once consenting is completed, and, under this Government’s reforms, that will happen sooner rather than later.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Those who have to leave for other business, please do so quietly.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the second reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, the consideration in committee of the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, the third reading of the Privacy Amendment Bill, and the second reading of the Policing (Police Vetting) Amendment Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport): I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

Regulatory systems bills are funny old things. They kind of sit somewhere between the old statutes amendment bills, which are uncontroversial minor changes to legislation, to your more substantive individual bills, which are maybe somewhat more contested across the House. This one is a bill to update the regulatory systems in the transport space, and it combines a range of work across successive Governments to bring to the House under one omnibus bill.

The bill does have Business Committee agreement under Standing Order 267 for it to be an omnibus bill, so I look forward to its support across the House. And of course, it does contain a range of changes proposed under the previous Government. If members look at the regulatory impact statements, they may recognise the names of some of their colleagues across the House who have done work on this as far back as 2021.

These kinds of bills do include wide suites of amendments that don’t warrant individual bills, so it is a good use of the House’s time to bring them together in one regulatory systems bill. Generally, this particular bill makes necessary changes across land transport, rail, and maritime legislation—as well as aviation maritime legislation—to make our transport regulatory system more effective and efficient. This will enable further economic growth by making our lives easier through a variety of important amendments. These amendments are designed to uphold good regulatory practice and ensure that the transport regulatory system is kept fit for purpose, while contributing to the Government’s focus on boosting productivity.

There are a range of—I think—quite interesting amendments in this bill, and there are a range of others that some may consider dull but worthy, and I’ll traverse a few of those over the next few minutes. One of the key things this bill does is it will keep our transport regulatory system modernised and relevant to a growing digital world. This will include things like amendments to transport legislation to pave the path for digital alternatives to physical licences, which I’ll touch on soon enough. Finally, the bill also provide provides some other amendments around aviation to progress time-sensitive aviation amendments.

As I mentioned previously, the bill does enable a couple of key interesting things. The first one that the House will be interested in is that it enables the framework for digital driver licences to be introduced in New Zealand. Now, to be clear, the bill does not establish digital driver licences; it creates the framework for the ministry and officials to then go away and do the consultative work that we need to undertake to make sure that it is implemented in a proper and considered way. But I think it would interest many members to know that, actually, within our—I guess—legal framework, we already recognise digital driver licences from other States and other jurisdictions; we just don’t have the ability to recognise our own. So this legislation will put in place the mechanism for implementing that, and, as we go through that process later on in the year, Cabinet will make further decisions about how that will roll out.

But I have met with a number of potential providers of these services, one including a meeting with Apple not too long ago, where they showed me prototypes of digital driver licences that other jurisdictions have put in place. It will help achieve the solution of what happens, you know, when we maybe forget our driver’s licence on the way to a visit to the ports, because we’re very interested in port security and we need our driver’s licence to prove our ID; or maybe when we’re going to the local wine bar in Christchurch central, and we have to provide our ID to the bouncer, and we pat our pockets and we’ve left our driver’s licence at home because we haven’t driven to town because we’re responsible drivers—we can bring up our digital driver’s licence on our phone and show that to the bouncer. Now, it’s important to note that this will be an option. Digital driver licences will not be mandatory. It provides the structure to put it in place, and manual driver licences or physical driver licences will always be available, because we are concerned and considerate of the access and technology issues that do arise.

Another thing that this bill does is that it allows us to shift from a paper-based warrant and registration system to a digital one. We all know the situation where you go and you renew your road-user charges or you renew your licence online—and then Rima Nakhle’s got her Suzuki Swift and she’s trying to put the little registration sticker right in the front of the dash and she’s reaching over and it’s hard, and it’s just annoying and it’s just a waste of time. So this bill will help modernise that system so that not only will we do away with a paper-based system of indicating whether your registration or your warrant is up to date, we will also be able to eliminate the requirement for notices and fees to be posted out.

It might surprise you to know that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) spent nearly $17 million a year in March on printing and postage for about 14 million items. This will go a significant way to reducing that time and resource. Again, this will be an option, so it will be an option for you to receive those notices by electronic means. Those who still require it physically and by the post will be able to do so. Progressing these changes supports our Government’s wider digital modernisation objective and delivers better user experiences.

Next, I want to just touch briefly on some of the civil aviation changes in the bill. The main thing it does is it corrects some drafting errors identified in civil aviation regulations which actually potentially prevent Auckland and Wellington airports from charging users to undertake aerodrome activities. Now, Mr Speaker, you’ll know, as an experienced previous transport Minister, that one of the core functions of an airport is to allow aerodrome activities to be undertaken, and it seems sensible to allow airports to charge for that. So this will fix a drafting error—a numbering error—in the regulations that were put forward, and it will implement it retrospectively, so that it will be as though the error never existed in the first instance.

Next, another thing the bill does is that it ensures that our regulators have effective tools to carry out their functions. For example, it will actually provide the Director of Land Transport powers to respond to emergency and time-critical events such as natural disasters in an appropriate way. Currently, the ability for the director to waive requirements under the Act is restricted, and we saw this under COVID, where there was limited ability for the director to extend the time for warrants or registrations to expire and it actually needed ministerial regulation to do so. So providing that ability for the director to have some flexibility in the system is important.

Another thing that bill does is that—members might not know this, but councils, currently, if they are looking to charge people for overstaying in time-limited car parks, they can only charge the maximum allowed; they have no flexibility to charge less than or underneath that maximum set by the Government. So this will actually allow councils to still make sure that they penalise people for overstaying the time, but be able to do so not charging the maximum—to set their own limits for this.

One more thing that this bill does is it provides powers for the New Zealand Transport Agency to proactively close State highways in times of emergency or where there are threats to life or safety. Currently, the NZTA relies on coordinating this with the New Zealand Police. Sometimes, in times of haste and urgency, this can be cumbersome and can create some legal difficulties down the road. So this will give the NZTA some more powers to close down highways when it’s needed.

Finally, there are a range of other smaller, minor changes. For example, the bill will allow the Minister of Conservation to exercise functions, duties, and powers under Part 3A of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 in the Subantarctic and Kermadec Islands. What does that mean? That means that the conservation Minister can act as though they were the regional unitary authority in those areas.

Finally, the bill does some more work in and around rail to allow the relevant rail investigators to have sufficiently clear roles after a rail incident or accident. Currently, they are reliant on the cooperation of the people involved in the accident. This bill will give them some more powers to retain or secure the site of an incident so that they can undertake the appropriate investigations.

This is one of those worthy bills that will have support across the House off to first reading. I think it contains, as I’ve said, some dull but very worthy changes, and also some very interesting and exciting changes for what we can expect in the future of digitisation in this Government. So, with that, I commend the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mālō e lelei. I rise on behalf of the Labour Party this afternoon to provide our support for the first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.

As the Minister himself has indicated, this is an omnibus bill, and I actually think the example that he has given, in particular the one about the Minister for Conservation exercising particular powers in relation to the Kermadecs and the subantarctic islands, is a good example of why this is an omnibus bill. We do support this bill as a form of technical but useful improvements to modernise our transportation system but, also, to look at reducing inefficiencies where that is able to be the case. While this is a bill that does tidy up some of those technical issues, in itself I don’t think it will be as transformative as perhaps some would like; but I do hope that it will make a difference none the less.

The Minister has taken a pick-and-mix approach to selecting some of the aspects of this bill, and I’m going to do the same, actually. I’m going to take some of them that have been identified—and I think they really do indicate the suite of change that is going to be on the agenda, shall we say, of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee as well. The one that the Minister referred to is around the digitisation of drivers’ licences, and while this won’t provide for this to, effectively, come into effect, it does provide the framework under which it would exist. Of course, the police that we have out and about are very mobile as well, so this would go hand in hand with that opportunity. Of course, the Government needs to meet its own target, which it’s not doing at the moment, around the number of police on the beat, to be able to make this transition.

I do hope, on the one hand, that while this might be an empowering form of legislation to make some of those changes, it does not let the Government off the hook when it comes to making sure that they deliver on their promises in that particular space. But the example that the Minister gives, around drivers’ licences and, effectively, this bill being able to enable utilisation of digital drivers’ licences, is a move in the right direction, particularly within the busyness of life. I think that, as an opportunity, will also make it easier for motorists and licence holders to go about their daily business. Not only does this bill provide for drivers’ licences but other forms of documentation that traditionally is affixed to a motor vehicle in a more physical sense, things like warrants of fitness, certificates of fitness and the like, so I think that is a good move.

One of the additional changes is that it does allow for some forms of infringement notices to be issued electronically. We might think that actually some of them already are issued electronically, but not all of them are. I think it’s important, as this bill progresses through select committee, that we make sure that the information that would be requested by a motorist, or someone who’d be subject to this requirement, is still able to be protected within the confines of privacy considerations. That’s one thing that we will be taking a look at as we continue to look at this through select committee.

One of the interesting aspects is the inability, currently, of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to close State highways. But what this bill does is it gives a provision for the New Zealand Transport Agency to be able to do that, but only when it comes to safety considerations. Now, these are individuals who are well attuned to the way in which our State highway network is able to function and operate, so it makes sense that they are able to do so quickly and efficiently as well.

This is a bill that seeks to address some changes in seven pieces of legislation, and one—which I think actually is the oldest one that it’s seeking to change, from 1989—is the Government Roading Powers Act 1989. That’s the one that would seek to give the NZTA the powers that the Minister has explained. But it also would seek to clarify the role that pedestrians, or those who might be classified as pedestrians, are able to utilise in some of the spaces on the roading network. Because at the moment, and we might not know this, but there are some parts of the roading network that, actually, you’re not able to, as a pedestrian who might be going about, maybe going to a bus stop that is located on a State highway network, actually utilise this.

In the Labour Party, we do support this bill. We think that it tidies up a number of things, many of them, we were able to commence when we were in Government—and the Minister has acknowledged that this is the work of previous Governments. But I look forward to, alongside members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, receiving submissions on this and seeing where we go. But at this stage, I’m very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As the two previous speakers have outlined, this is not a world-changing bill here. This is a lot of tidy-up and modernisation, and for that reason the Green Party will be supporting it.

I did want to speak briefly in my speech to some focuses for the Green Party and respond to a bit of what the Associate Minister of Transport himself said. It is interesting, as my colleague Tangi Utikere just mentioned, about the amendments to the Government Roading Powers Act 1989 and how that Act actually specified that the use of motorways could be restricted. We often see those signs—no pedestrians, no bikes—on bits of the motorway. I think that did reflect that obsession in the second half of the 20th century with building infrastructure just for cars and not recognising other ways that people get around.

Luckily, we have had some time where we’ve had subsequent transport Ministers of different parties recognising that it’s important to provide infrastructure that enables people to get around, across, and along areas where urban motorways have been built by foot and by bike. I was able to experience some of that excellent infrastructure, some of which was opened by the Rt Hon John Key, alongside the Grafton Gully Motorway when I and my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick went to visit the Port of Auckland on Friday. I was able to pick up an e-bike and go almost directly from our office on Cross Street, which is near Karangahape Road, all the way down to the port, almost entirely on separated cycleways—initiated, first, under a National-led Government, and then more have been developed under a Labour-led Government. I think that’s really great, because as long as I’ve been in this country, it’s been the Greens leading on this issue, and I think it does show that the Greens have set the transport agenda in many ways and influenced the infrastructure that is being delivered.

Waka Kotahi is being given broader powers to close parts of the State highway network for safety reasons, and I absolutely support that. I would note, unfortunately, that they’ve had to close bits of the State highway for hours at a time because of dangerous road crashes. Last month, we saw at least four occasions in which people died on bits of the State highway where the speed limit had just been forced back up to 100 kilometres an hour, usually against the wishes of the local community. People in a very short period of time lost their lives when there had been no crashes, no fatalities, during the time when the speed limits had been lower.

Ironically, the Government claimed that raising the speed limits was about economic productivity. But obviously when there’s more road crashes, more deaths, more serious injuries, and hours of the State highway being closed due to increased severity of crashes due to higher than safe speed limits for the quality of the road that is there, I think it demonstrates just how completely ridiculous that claim is.

The Minister claimed in his speech on this bill—and it’s something that the Government of the day often claims—that every little thing they’re doing is to support economic growth or productivity. I highly doubt the changes in this legislation are going to massively increase productivity, sadly. Like, it would be good. I mean, we all want things to be easier. We all want to be able to apply to renew driver’s licences entirely online, from overseas. That was something I received a lot of correspondence about when I was an Associate Minister, and I think we did take some steps to make that possible.

In terms of the steps that are going to be taken in this bill, I’m sure it will be interesting to see at the select committee if enabling recognition of digital driver’s licences does result in some convenience for both people working in the public sector and people who are accessing their driver’s licence in that way, using their driver’s licence in that way. However, I don’t think it’s going to be a world groundbreaking increase in productivity from these amendments, as enthusiastic as Minister Meager is to claim that they will be.

The other thing I found interesting is the changes around parking enforcement fees and making it possible for road controlling authorities to set the parking enforcement fees and that they don’t have to be as high as the maximum. That’s probably really important because another step needs to be taken to actually increase the maximum, because for many years, councils have not been able to recover their costs from parking and from towing when people are infringing various road rules on local roads. Probably one reason we haven’t been able to increase the maximum is because automatically the maximum becomes the default.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to endorse the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, along with my colleagues who have just spoken, I welcomed this coming to the committee, because this is about, as the Minister has said, perhaps untying some red tape that’s holding New Zealand back in a way. We’ve got economic growth and transformation on the tongue. We need to get the Government and its red tape out of the way so that New Zealanders can go about, in the same way this Minister has, in a workman-like fashion, identifying issues and solving them for each other so that we can actually get our country moving in the way that needs to be done.

Speaking of moving, my colleague Simon Court and I have visited businesses across New Zealand, and in this case I’m thinking of one in the Bay of Plenty that uses a defunct rail line. We heard some stories there about the regulatory burden that’s been tied up in red tape, to be able to operate on that piece of rail line, and I think that having experiences like that shared with the committee so that we can get in there and untie this red tape that’s holding back entrepreneurial-type Kiwis who are getting out there, trying to create value for each other—if we can untie some of that red tape—that’s how we’re going to get towards that economic growth and transformation that New Zealand seriously needs. I look forward to hearing from New Zealanders with their cases of regulatory reform that’s needed in this space. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): The Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill is common sense and modernisation. Our transport system is huge, and small inconsistencies, gaps, or antiquated requirements can undermine efficiency and safety. As has been mentioned by the Minister and our member from across the aisle, it’s wide ranging in its powers, namely from the Subantarctic Islands through to the Kermadecs. New Zealand First has been about safety, sovereignty, and sensible regulation all along. We’re about removing unnecessary red tape while continuing to keep communities safe on the roads, on the sea, and in the air. The bill does both. It allows regulators to act quickly where there is a safety issue but simplifies things for good New Zealanders by removing unnecessary paperwork.

We support this bill because it improves safety, modernises our transport infrastructure, and ensures that regulators can enforce protection of life without red tape. This is the sort of practical, no-nonsense legislation that New Zealand First is happy to support. Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena. Thank you, Mr Speaker. From what we can tell, this bill aims to modernise Aotearoa’s transport system, making it more efficient, effective, and less prone to failure. I did have a little time on the committee at one point when I first started my new job here, so it’s good to see that things like this are happening and are made good use of. It also manages to do so without necessarily disenfranchising any group, including Māori. By equipping regulations with better tools, reducing compliance costs, and enabling digital alternatives like electronic licences and notices, the system is set to function more smoothly and meet the needs of modern Aotearoa.

Key changes, such as giving the New Zealand Transport Agency more powers around road safety, strengthening enforcement of transport services licences, and enabling digital driving licence are initiatives that Te Pāti Māori can support—I can see my colleague smiling on the left; I know he’s logged straight into this conversation.

These updates will help build a safer and more responsive system for all of our communities. This bill also enhances investigation powers in rail and maritime sectors, removes outdated rules, and increases fines to create more consistency across different transport modes. In aviation, it fixes longstanding legal errors and clarifies how airports can set charges for services.

Overall, it’s a bit of a tidy-up legislation. It addresses gaps, and, as my colleague on the left said, it’s more common sense, which isn’t often so common around here at times, I find.

The only final thing I wanted to say about this is that, twice, I’ve heard “Kermadecs” mentioned. That’s in my piece of the world, up in the very Far North. At any time in which that name is mentioned and there is something happening up there, then please talk to Te Aupōuri. We know what we’re talking about. That’s our piece of water and our piece of dirt. And with all of this, tautoko mārika [absolutely support], we support the bill. Thank you so much, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): There are times where you realise “This is why I came to Parliament.” This is not really one of those times. It is dull but worthy, and that’s the reality of our parliamentary democracy. Not everything changes lives dramatically, but they are incremental improvements that make a difference in small but impactful ways, as my colleague Rima Nakhle said.

So it’s a pleasure to rise and support this bill as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—it’s a great committee—and we will look forward to receiving submissions on this. I don’t think there will be a huge amount of submissions. So with that, I just want to say that it’s all about creating efficiency and improving things. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there’s a bit of enthusiasm from the other side of the House on this regulatory systems bill. Honestly, sometimes you do read these bills and you think that, well, they’re a bit dry, but this one has something for everyone. There is the law of the sea in this bill, there is a prototype of holographic—possibly—drivers’ licences, and there are changes to the Railways Act and to the Civil Aviation Act. This is actually a very interesting bill, and I think it was slightly undersold by Dan Bidois, the last speaker from the National Party.

In fact, there is something that should be very interesting to that member, because of the changes that are put in place by the New Zealand Transport Agency allowing it to close various roads. He will know that in his electorate he has a very significant piece of highway, which is the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which crosses over into his electorate, and one of the things that this bill does is it actually looks at when particular roads can have pedestrianised access. I’m sure there are many members of the public in his constituency that will be interested to know whether the Harbour Bridge, which is closed to pedestrians, will be able to be utilised—as it sometimes is—in the same fashion under this piece of legislation. So I would encourage him to have a closer look at this bill and see if there isn’t something in there that he can get excited about.

Now, as my colleague Tangi Utikere has said, this is a bill that is supported by the Labour Party, and many regulatory systems bills are, in fact, done in good faith, really, across the House to make our legal system and our laws work better. In fact, this one, as the Associate Minister of Transport has said, corrects some errors that were in regulations, and it also makes a number of changes that not only make the law better but also, actually, probably allow it to be more futureproofed.

One of the main examples that the Minister looked at was digital drivers’ licences. This is something that, allegedly, is used in other jurisdictions, though it’s not something that I’ve seen before. I have lived in another country and have had the particular different piece of plastic that they had at that time, but I’m interested to know that that is the case and, in fact, what a prototype would be. I would have assumed that it was just a picture, perhaps, on your phone, a bit like your Air New Zealand boarding pass. But I look forward to finding out exactly what is meant by that, and, hopefully, that can mean that we carry fewer pieces of plastic around in our pockets. I would be interested to know if this is consistent with the rules around cellphone use, if that is the place that you are going to be carrying your digital driver’s licence, because otherwise we’d be in a conundrum, wouldn’t we, if we were stopped by the police and asked to show our digital driver’s licence and it was carried on our phone, and, in fact, we’re not, technically, allowed to utilise our phone when we are in charge of a motor vehicle.

Hopefully, those things can be worked out. I’m sure that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who will be looking at this bill, will make sure that these issues are ironed out so that there is absolute clarity for members of the public, because we also wouldn’t want people to be looking at their phone and have a photo of them taken by the police, and then have them say, “Oh, I was just checking my driver’s licence.” I mean, that would also be a potentially unwanted pitfall of this legislation if it was not gone through with sufficient clarity.

There are other interesting things in this. As I said, there aren’t many regulatory systems bills where you get to talk about the law of the sea, and there are some changes in here which, I think, we would say on this side of the House that we are very supportive of. That’s in relation to the alignment of domestic maritime legislation with the Maritime Labour Convention, and we know that the good people at Maritime New Zealand do an absolutely tremendous job of ensuring our safety and security and of looking after our maritime safety. These are actually very, very good provisions that are being imported into this piece of legislation, so we’re very, very supportive of that. Obviously, that’s a really technical area that requires consideration, and I’m sure that the committee will look at that.

There are other things that I found of interest in this. There’s, obviously, specific provisions in relation to Auckland and Wellington. For those of us in those areas, there are issues that have been corrected around the use of the airspace so that fees can be charged for that, as the Minister touched on, but also, I understand, there are other sections in this that also look at things like parking and specific provisions in relation to those particular airports.

So there really is something for everyone in this, and also really interesting changes that designate when a vehicle can be called a motor vehicle. These are rhetorical questions that we never thought we would ask ourselves, but these are, in fact, answered by this regulatory systems bill, which I commend to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise in support of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill—a critical step to us modernising and streamlining New Zealand’s transport legislation. This bill makes critical, targeted updates to transport law. This bill involves a broad range of legislation, including the amendment of 12 Acts and the set of 29 regulations across our land, maritime, and aviation system. One of the key amendments is to enable the future use of the digital driving licence, an important step toward modernising how we interact with transport services. These small but important changes help ensure our transport sector stay responsive and future-ready. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very surprised that members of the National Party, who love their roads so much, aren’t really getting into this, because it’s an interesting piece of legislation. In fact, you know, they’re skimming over the top, but there’s actually quite a lot of work for the select committee to do here. So I’m just going to point to one very particular thing and then one more general thing, and hope that they’ll address it.

The first is the service of notices, and it’s something that I’m a little concerned about, because if we look at clause 29, which amends section 91B of the Land Transport Act, which is titled “Ways in which warning notice or driver’s licence stop order or details of related fines must be served”, it says that it can now be served “by the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice sending an electronic notification to the defendant that states where the defendant can access the notice, order, or notice of details electronically”—it’s a link, right; that’s a link, for those who didn’t work that out. “Electronic notification” doesn’t actually say what that is. That just means a notification that’s sent by electronic means. So that could be an email, a text message, or, if you’re Chris Bishop, a Snapchat message, and that actually is worth looking into.

But it gets much more detailed than that, because if we go down to subclause (5) it tells you when service is deemed to have occurred. That’s the thing: if I hand you a notice, a piece of paper, the moment of service is really clear—it’s when you take it from me—but if it’s electronic, it’s actually much more complicated, because there is a period of time where neither you nor I have it. In fact, whilst it’s rare, there are instances—plenty of instances—where an electronic notification can be sent by me and never received by you.

Camilla Belich: That’s right—didn’t have that problem with fax machines.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, you didn’t have that problem with fax machines—we’re not going backwards, though, Camilla Belich. But new subsection (5) of the amended section will now provide that “the notice, order, [etc.] is served at the time the electronic communication containing the notification [etc.] first enters an information system outside of the control of the originator”. Now, in fact, not everyone is aware of this, but when you send an email, it often will go through several information systems. It will leave the Parliament server—that’s the system in our control—and it will then enter, often, one or more servers before it reaches the service or the computer system under the control of the recipient, and anything can go wrong in that chain. But this says that as long as you’ve sent it, it’s sufficient to prove that the electronic communication containing the notification was properly addressed and sent.

So we’ve got a problem here, because this is infringement fines. In fact, it doesn’t matter whether you’ve actually received the email or text message or not, as long as it was properly addressed and sent; you bear the risk of a failure of the information system. Can you have a look at that when you get there, Mr Utikere, in select committee? That would be good.

The other thing is this: what we don’t realise is that particularly in the transport sector, there are quite a lot of powers of inspectors. You don’t often think—[Bell rung] oh, is it that time already?—about railway inspectors. But if you look at clause 110, which inserts a whole lot of sections, 72A, B, C, and so on, it gives quite sweeping powers of inspection and search; the power to take samples and other objects and things, the power to enter homes and marae. Now, they’re largely consistent with the Search and Surveillance Act, but I would ask that the select committee do kind of run the ruler over those, because, obviously, transport accident investigation’s important, but we just do need to make sure that there’s no overstepping of the mark. I know the select committee will be diligent and will look at that, but I certainly would like them to look at that, and I know that there’s similar provisions elsewhere in respect of other transport modes.

A good bill overall, but a couple of little gnarly things to look at. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thanks, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to join my colleagues in support of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill in this first reading. In a nutshell, in the interests of productivity and efficiency, which this Government is always aiming towards, this bill proposes sensible, practical changes which, essentially, streamline some day-to-day activities, particularly through digitisation. I look forward to us passing it in that final third reading, but for now, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Local Government (Water Services) Bill

Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill

Third Readings

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I present a legislative statement on the bills divided from the Local Government (Water Services) Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

I have the privilege of leading this final step to complete the legislative framework for New Zealand’s water services delivery system. These bills implement Local Water Done Well, the Government’s plan to address challenges with New Zealand’s water services. Many of the changes we are making are urgently required.

Simply put: chronic under-investment and the lack of sustainable management of local government water services has come home to roost. Around the country, communities are facing significant challenges that have been repeatedly ignored or not adequately addressed. Poor or badly managed water services cause economic harm to businesses and inhibit growth. Failure of water services can make people ill or even worse. This is a basic necessity to get right and has been put on the back-burner for too long. Inadequate maintenance of existing services and the failure to grow new services is costing us. Much-needed new housing development is being slowed or even halted by lack of capacity in water service networks. Ratepayers are facing unsustainable cost increases. We cannot afford to let these trends continue.

These bills will enable sustainable growth to meet the needs of our communities and businesses. These bills give local government the responsibility and the tools to address the challenges facing their communities and to more cost effectively deliver water services. I want to keep repeating that Local Water Done Well will maintain local ownership, choice, and decision making. That gives councils the best shot at identifying their most pressing problems and the right approach to solving them.

The Local Government (Water Services) Bill provides a range of service delivery models, including new water organisations, that will be able to operate at scale for councils to determine how best to meet local needs. The bill sets appropriate governance and accountability mechanisms and maintains requirements for public ownership. Thanks to the flexible options in this bill, councils will be able to choose the best structure for financially sustainable water services that meet regulatory requirements and local needs. Current indications are that many councils will enter into multi-council arrangements and tailor these arrangements to their own local needs and preferences.

Through the preliminary arrangements Act, several councils have already submitted their water services delivery plans, providing certainty to their communities and their structure for delivery, going forward. Last month, I was pleased to see Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council’s plan accepted by the Secretary for Local Government. This will establish a new multi-council, council-controlled organisation (CCO). This plan will meet local needs and scale efficiencies. I’m heartened to see that all the plans accepted to date have shown a clear willingness to consider forming larger regional models over time.

Let’s be clear about something: the success of Local Water Done Well has nothing to do with how many water entities we have; it is about ensuring councils are using a model which is financially sustainable and meets all regulatory requirements so we can have safe, reliable water services for all Kiwis. These bills are clear that the water services need to be financially sustainable. Development and maintenance must be improved, but costs must be met fairly. Growth should pay for growth, and appropriate levels of borrowing will allow costs to be spread equitably between current and future ratepayers.

It also bears repeating that the arrangement with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), struck last year by the Government, is a game-changer for local government water services. The arrangements give access to an enhanced level of finance from LGFA to water organisations that are financially supported by their parent council. This financing is crucial for many councils to support investment in water infrastructure over long periods of time, rather than funding through rates. This approach is prudent and consistent with regulated public utilities around the world. This fulfils our promise to enable more investment in infrastructure, sooner.

These bills introduce economic regulation for water services to provide appropriate oversight and accountability to councils and consumers that water services are being well managed. Economic regulation will initially apply to drinking water supplies and waste-water services, whether these are delivered by councils or new water organisations. Economic regulation will promote quality services that meet New Zealand’s expectations at appropriate prices to consumers. We have looked hard at the regulatory requirements to strip out excessive and unnecessary costs. We are ensuring that compliance requirements are at the level needed to achieve safe and effective water services. Regulation must be cost effective and proportionate to the risks that need to be managed.

This Government made a promise on Going for Housing Growth, and that is why enabling growth is a key objective for all water service providers. There are clearer processes for them to work collaboratively with developers, landowners, and water service users to deliver and maintain necessary services. All parties will have greater certainty about decision making, and clear pathways to resolve disagreements. With these bills, councils will be required to publish detailed information about existing and planned water services infrastructure. This will enable a more collaborative approach between councils and developers, and time and cost will be reduced by a simplified approval process for connections. Councils will be able to set up new tools, such as infringement fines, which will allow quick and effective responses to damaging or risky behaviours such as dumping rubbish in water networks.

The bill provides much-needed clarity in stormwater management: about who is responsible for managing various types of risks and hazards, especially work to reduce risks or prevent risks from happening. As you can see, long-term thinking is needed to set a strategic and integrated approach for water services. Many of these basics were not being achieved under the status quo. New Zealanders don’t want to worry about water gone wrong, unsafe drinking water, inadequate stormwater management, or failing pipes and infrastructure. This reform sets up a future where investment in these critical services means they won’t have to.

The progress we are making with these bills is yet another key achievement in our work to address the challenges faced by New Zealanders’ water services. In less than two years of Local Water Done Well, we have curbed water charges for Aucklanders through the Auckland Council - led Watercare solution. We have also secured better access to low-cost, long-term finance for water services from the Local Government Funding Agency.

Successfully establishing the right regulatory framework for water services through these bills is yet another huge milestone on the journey to the water services system that New Zealanders need and deserve. I now look forward to supporting local government to complete the work that lies ahead, using the new structure and tools to achieve what they are designed to do for the benefit of all. I commend these bills to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The time has finally come. The time has finally come that this bill—this Government’s bill—confirms and cements for households all around our country and in communities that they are to bear higher prices because of this Government’s “Local Water Done Badly” form of water reform. Higher prices. And what we’ve just heard from that Government Minister, the Hon Casey Costello, is a very clear indication and message to households all around the country that it is coming your way; it is coming your way: the increase in costs that households can expect to receive. It’s on that basis and the lack of foresight and planning and execution on the part of this Government when it comes to water reform that we opposed these bills in their divided form, in their entirety.

This opportunity for water reform really does miss a beat. It is a missed opportunity in any sense to signal to households around New Zealand that what could be delivered was something that was affordable, something that was equitable, and something that was sustainable with a view to the long term. That is not something that this Government has sought to do in its approach to changing how water reform will exist in this country. That’s why it is deeply, deeply disturbing that they have held true to just continue down this path of what is a very one-track mind.

What this bill does is it imposes on councils—and, therefore, on households—burdens, without any adequate financial support. There is no adequate financial support for the changes that this Government is seeking to implement to support households through what is a difficult time now and what will be a difficult time in the future under these reforms initiated by this Government.

It also seeks to undermine any form of investment when it comes to long-form investment or long-term investment in water infrastructure. It weakens the environmental protections and the environmental aspects that people who came to select committee—who wanted to have their say on this and wanted to be heard—have been ignored by this Government. Today is a shameful day in that particular sense.

We believe that this bill will lead to higher costs for ratepayers, it will lead to a fragmented form of delivery of water services around this country, and it actually is—it won’t lead to; it is—a failure to address some fundamental issues when it comes to long-term infrastructure needs for water services here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This bill actually incentivises one thing: it incentivises councils not to work with each other—it incentivises councils not to work with each other. It moves away from something that could have been centralised and something where real efficiencies could have actually been achieved and gained. Instead, actually, what we’re seeing are councils all around this country opt out of a regional opportunity; or the other side of that is that they are left as orphan councils, because they have no other opportunity.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: We said that would happen.

TANGI UTIKERE: We did say that would happen and that is what is coming true.

I know that there are members opposite—I know there are members all around this House, as they talk to councils either in their local area or, as I have been, meeting with councils all around the country; we know and they know that there are councils that have been forced into this position because their hands had been tied behind their backs and there are no other options for them.

We cannot, we will not, support what is inadequate levels of resourcing when it comes to water services in this country. This is something that is actually not just subpar, it is actually dangerous, because it is setting up for the future something that is not going to be able to be achieved. We know that because we just need to look at reporting today. I mean, the reporting that’s come out today bandies around a few figures. The Minister said in her contribution earlier that ratepayers are facing unsustainable costs. Well, there is a truth—there is an absolute truth—because ratepayers in this country are facing unsustainable costs under this “Local Water Done Badly” model.

If we look at costs and water bills in Christchurch, going up $900 a year; Hamilton—and I know there’s a member here who represents that community—$1,700 a year; Nelson, $750; Dunedin, $1,200; Wellington possibly going from an extra $2,100 to $4,800 a year. These are significant prices that this Government is forcing on to households, to bear that cost. They will try and blind everyone and say, “No, no. This is the best option that’s out—the best option that’s possible.” It is far from the truth when it comes to reality.

So it is a sad day that we are here, voting on a bill that is going to deliver more costs to communities. While Christopher Luxon and this Government promised to make things better, he and his Government are making things worse. By pursuing this one-track mind in terms of water reform around this country for communities, he and his Government are simply indicating that they know best and they are simply expecting communities to fail.

I have been travelling around the country and I have been meeting with councils, listening to the concerns, listening to the struggles that they are facing. While we hear from the Government that there’s a sense of happiness from the Government that these water delivery service plans are going to be filed by 3 September and we hear from the Minister today that everything’s on track. Why is it then that the Government is seeking to issue letters to councils to encourage them to undertake some form of regional collaboration? Well, I’ll tell you why: it’s because the very form of reform that this Government has is not incentivising any form of regional collaboration. It’s actually saying to councils, “You need to go back to the drawing board and think about how you’re going to deliver this, but we’re not going to really encourage you to work alongside other communities and other councils. You’re not going to get any of the regional efficiencies that those gains would bring.” That’s deeply, deeply disturbing.

We heard through the select committee from councils all around the country as to what this reform package would mean for them. Yet, what we have in front of us are two bills that do nothing but complete—I think Rachel Brooking referred to it as—a horror trilogy in terms of water reform from this Government. That is very sad indeed, particularly where there are issues around credit ratings and where there are issues around councils that are faced with borrowing headroom or the lack of it. What we are going to see is a deficit when it comes to meeting the needs of water service infrastructure for communities all around the country.

Households deserve much better from the Government. This is a Government that is failing them in this regard. This is a Government that is saying to households, “We don’t care about the challenges that you face at the moment. We don’t care that, yes, there is a cost of living crisis. What we do care about is forcing you to dig deeper into your pockets to meet costs that we don’t actually know what those costs would be, but we’re not prepared to incentivise any regional collaboration.” That is shameful. That is absolutely shameful.

One of the things throughout this water reform that’s been deeply concerning is hearing from councils and communities, for example, about the last-minute levy that was slapped on them as a result of the regulator’s work under this Government. Councils had gone through planning and consultative processes, and then to, basically, say, “Well, you’re going to have to pay this significant amount of money—this levy that’s coming your way—without even knowing about that.”, I think is just yet another way that signifies how serious this Government is about its partnership with the local government sector. I think people can think for themselves around what that particular course of action would look like.

Households will bear an unfortunate cost. While, for example, The Post has reported today just some of those costs, these are costs that will be replicated all around the country—all around the country. The majority of these costs are in the thousands upon thousands of dollars. Yet the Government turns its head when it comes to looking at all the infrastructure needs in the three waters space for affordable water reform when it comes to the long-term approach. All of their data, all of their figures, are actually not looking at a 30-year horizon. It’s simply saying, “How can we actually incentivise councils to work together? Oh, actually, we won’t do that, because we’re going to say, ‘You go and do what you like. You be an orphan child if that’s how it ends up for you.’”

This is not a good piece of legislation. We have continued to oppose this. This will land on households and mean that they will be faced with additional costs that are simply unfair. This could have been avoided, but this Government believes that they know best, and that’s unfortunate. I do not commend this bill to the House.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I want to take a moment to acknowledge how important this issue is, both for our people and for the environment. I want to take a moment on that because it is often—and particularly this week just been but definitely this sitting block—quite staggering, the extent to which the Government fails to understand the bleeding obvious.

There are Kiwis today who turn on their tap and cannot rely on the drinking water that comes out of it, and they’re nervous about what impact it might have on them, on their kids, or whatever use they want to have with that water. Is it safe to brush their kids’ teeth? Is it not?

The same goes with countless experiences in countless estuaries, rivers, and beaches, where it used to be safe to swim, where it used to be safe to fish or gather kai, and over such a long period of time now those ecosystems have been degraded to the extent that the ecosystem is now not only unrecognisable but severely ecologically compromised. These days, who sees seagrasses in their tidal estuaries anymore? They’re extremely rare and they used to be a common occurrence. We used to see so many kōura or freshwater crayfish in our rivers. We used to not have to think twice about collecting and eating shellfish from our estuaries and beaches.

This bill was that opportunity to stop being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and to actually move the focus to investment decisions that actually prioritised the health of our communities and the health of our water sources, our access to safe, clean drinking water, and actually waste-water and stormwater solutions that do not unnecessarily harm our health, and we could have done it collectively. Like my colleague Tangi Utikere has just pointed out, there is no incentive in this bill to actually do this collectively so that no community was unfairly burdened with the cost, but, sadly, these are the very areas where this bill absolutely fails.

As disappointing as it was to be part of the select committee process in terms of seeing how rushed this bill was, I really want to thank the many submitters who did actually take the time in those very constrained timeline processes to actually have their say. I particularly want to thank the officials as well, who were completely scrambling, at times, to keep up with the demands of this Government and the fact that this bill was really hashed together with very little due diligence and due scrutiny. That is the reality of a bill of this magnitude with this many implications, so a big thanks to the community and to the officials.

In this, I particularly want to thank the councils, because they’re, essentially, the ones that are forced to grin and bear it while the Government constantly reiterates this misguided, ill-informed myth that the Government is somehow better placed to make decisions that should stay with local government.

Now, from my time on local government—you know, I really miss the constraints of local government where you were actually forced to talk to community. You were actually forced to have options that actually looked at the evidence base, and those informed your decisions. It’s so clear that this is now absent from this bill. It’s been particularly clear in the bigger picture of where this bill sits, with the massive overreach that we just had in this last-minute amendment in the resource management bill last week, where the Government introduced the implications by which the Minister for the Environment is now able to gatekeep the decisions that local government would usually be able to make that would have impacts on the quality of the discharges that come out of our waste-water and stormwater systems. It’s just part of that bigger picture of how this bill falls so short in actually meeting New Zealanders’ needs.

Now, as to the flaws of the bill, it’s hugely disappointing to have to re-litigate these again and again, but it seems like the Government just does not hear it. So the first part of that: in the initial version of the bill, there was a really sensible objective up front and centre that service providers would actually provide water services that “do not have adverse effects on the environment;”, and the Government chose to remove that. They decided that this wasn’t going to be the time where investment in the health of our people and the environment actually came first, and that’s a serious problem.

It’s a serious problem because we know that for 60 percent of our waste-water treatment plants, their consents will come up for renewal in the next decade, and 20 percent of those are already operating on expired consents. So there’s going to be this massive investment decision time frame in the next few years by these water service providers. This was our opportunity to make sure that those decisions actually reflected community needs and desires.

The other aspect where this Government has completely and utterly failed to grasp, again, the bleeding obvious is that these water service providers will operate here in Aotearoa New Zealand. What that means is that iwi and hapū have ongoing recognised—and also unfortunately unrecognised—tino rangatiratanga over fresh water. So when you’re carrying out significant reform that impacts fresh water in such a critical way, the most basic thing that the Government could do as a Te Tiriti partner is actually to recognise and provide for a place where mana whenua Māori actually have a place in the formation of these water entities.

Now, thank goodness for the very basic changes that did happen at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that strengthened some provisions and protections for Treaty settlements, particularly Ngāti Rangi and Te Ture Whaimana. Yes, some councils will understand their partnership roles, but others, as we’re seeing right now during the local government campaign, dive right into this racist rhetoric around Māori wards and even basic representation of iwi and hapū in these decisions, and they are excluding Māori. That means that we will not get to a proper solution when it comes to these decisions.

Now, the ultimate failure in this bill is this ill-thought-out set of single standards when it comes to waste water and stormwater. I wanted to quote Selwyn District Council’s submission in this, because they really summed it up: “These standards effectively remove the ability for council to impose community-informed rules or standards even where those rules are more restrictive due to local environmental needs. The council is concerned there will be a lack of oversight and that centrally designed and nationally applicable standards may lead to worse environmental outcomes due to a lack of appreciation for local conditions, issues, or nuances.”

Now, another example that was given of this is in Ōtautahi Christchurch with the waste-water treatment plant there. I wonder how the coastal communities there would react if they knew that when the city waste-water treatment plant comes up for consent renewal, the limits of bacterial counts from the waste-water treatment plant will rise from 1,000 coliform units to 5,000 coliform units up to 40,000 units, and they’ll be paying for the privilege of that. They will be absolutely devastated and disgusted. To add further insult to injury with that, this bill prohibits public or even limited notification so that the community actually gets their say.

This bill is yet another nail in the coffin of deliberate dismantling of freshwater protections. Kiwis needed the Government to actually get this right. They’ve failed to do so, and Te Pāti Kākāriki absolutely do not support this bill.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is two bills, reforming the way local government and water services interact. What it is doing is far from what the Opposition has been accusing it of. What it’s doing is addressing an issue that we’ve had for a long time, which are delays and avoidance of infrastructure renewals, refreshments, and making sure that the issues such as leaks or use are being taken into account. We’ve got a problem with people avoiding costs in the future, and the cost of living is an example of that, where people are paying higher inflated costs due to a lack of outcomes for money spent in the past—in the same way that ratepayers are seeing water costs rising, but it’s from decisions made in the past, not this bill.

This bill is maintaining what New Zealanders asked for: that’s local control and ownership of the assets which they have built up and paid for. It’s giving local authorities different options of ways to manage their local water. That will be through in-house delivery, coming up with council-controlled organisations (CCO), being a sole CCO for their own council or in partnership with other councils; but it’s giving that local control.

We’ve heard some comments about regulations. One of the things that really needs to be taken into account is the different size and variety of water supplies. You know, if you’re a small rural scheme or a stand-alone domestic scheme supplying a couple of dwellings, you need to be addressed by the regulator with cost-proportionate and risk-proportionate regulations, otherwise, it’s going through the roof. That is just some of the things that this bill is doing.

It’s a bill that needs to be done because we are seeing issues in our local authorities’ provision of water and taking away of said water once it’s used. The costs have gotten too high. Councils need to be on the ball with their renewals, with their consent pathways coming up, so we don’t end up in a situation where there are consents outstanding.

We’ve got Resource Management Act reform coming—and plenty of other things—but in the meantime, this bill is going to address some of those issues in water. I commend it to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. I can’t believe what I’m hearing in the House today. I’ve been hearing that councils across the country aren’t happy with this. I must say, on my journeys across New Zealand—I know my colleagues, as well, travel across and meet all the councils, and they’re giving me a different sign. They’re telling me this legislation is something that they wanted, and they advocated for, so I’m very confused by the Opposition saying that the councils are struggling with this piece of legislation. They were struggling with the past legislation from the past Government.

Through my experience on the Marlborough District Council—in my last term at council—I saw the amount of signs that went up around the community about stopping three waters. There was a community outcry about what the past Government was trying to implement. This here, as we just heard from the last speaker, gives back local control. It gives back local ownership.

What was so concerning to constituents and ratepayers and councils across this country was that the last Government wanted to give everything away. It was going to be given away to four mega-entities. But this is actually giving control. It’s not centralisation; it’s actually giving back to local decision makers. It’s giving back to local councils control over their assets. It’s keeping those assets within the council or within the parent company. That was the major concern with the past legislation.

To this point, you’ve got to look why we are here, and you have to really go back to 2016. You have to go back to Havelock North and what happened there. The event that happened there—with an unconfined aquifer—where people got sick and some people died was tragic, and that’s something that was debated in this House at the time, and there needed to be improvements. Nobody steps away from that. That’s why we’ve got the regulator. Now we’ve got a regulator that is there around controls of standards. But the last Government, in their way of fixing that, threw $1.2 billion down the drain. They didn’t fix the pipe. How many pipes did you fix?; $1.2 billion, and you didn’t—and they laugh at us. But having spent $1.2 billion, you walk around Wellington, you walk around our cities, and water is pouring out of the ground. It is unbelievable. Nothing was fixed; $1.2 billion was spent and nothing is fixed.

But this here is going to give local councils the ability to get on with the job. We have had the legislation with the preliminary arrangements around water service plans that got councils under way doing those plans. It’s given councils the ability to set up whether they’re going to keep water under their own control or through council-controlled organisations. That has all been under way. They are now able to set up the water organisations and, again, keep that in local control.

I was able to sit on the select committee for this. There was a massive amount of amendments. I don’t shy from that. It is a big piece of legislation. As we see in the House today, the bill’s been split. There is a lot of detail in this, but I do believe it does give certainty. But, really, the major part to this piece of legislation is the risk. We’ve got to look at the risk that is involved and the proportionate response that you have to give. If you look at many councils across the country that are treating water to high standards and waste water to high standards, and then being told that they have to put that to land and spend hundreds of millions of dollars, it makes no sense. Excess costs over standards that are too high are no good for community rates and are no good for actually trying to make better-quality decisions.

We’ve heard through the legislation about the growth around the development levies. That was well debated and has been changed. I agree with the last speaker, too, around the rural supplies; those under 25 connections and less not actually being involved in this. Communities where I live in the Marlborough Sounds—small communities—were going to face huge costs of having to implement the last piece of legislation that now falls away under here.

Stormwater—that’s rainwater and rainfalls—we don’t have a lot of control over that, but we have clarity in this piece of legislation about who, actually, has to deal with stormwater. That is the territorial authorities. Isn’t it great to get rid of co-governance from this piece of legislation? Get rid of it! We are about New Zealanders. We are about Kiwis. We do not want takiwā boundaries, like we had in Marlborough, which was absolutely nonsense. We are about water and where water is falling and looking after communities, and nothing about nonsense, backroom takiwā boundaries that have nothing to do with water delivery.

I’m so glad the Opposition is so vocal because it just shows how bad the last piece of legislation was. New Zealand First is about common sense, and the changes that New Zealand has demanded are in this piece of legislation. New Zealand First is supporting it because it protects public ownership—public ownership—that the Opposition was giving away. It will enhance accountability, and it puts communities back at the heart of water management. I’m very proud, and it’s a tremendous day. It’s not the day that the Opposition is saying; it’s a tremendous day that this piece of legislation is going to be passed, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēna tātou e te Whare. Yeah, I don’t know how common sense that sounded on the left for me, but I do know that in the time of when three waters was a thing, 14 iwi groups and hapū groups came together under Waipunarangi and Te Tai Tokerau and made very good decisions. I know this lot gets concerned about this thing called “co-governance”, but whatever you decide to call it, it just comes down to some more racist thinking. What is also really interesting is that I find it interesting when the member on the left decides to use Māori words like takiwā—no other side of that does he use Māori words in any other way, but suddenly, when he wants to damn an idea, he uses our reo, te reo Māori. I don’t know whether it’s his reo, but certainly he uses it in such an obvious and ridiculous, racist way. Man, I would suggest that he read some more. So, yeah, I’m going to go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just, now, with the racist call, where it pertains to an individual, please be careful.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yes—generalise it?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Oh, it was general—I’ll take it as not pertaining to the individual.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: It does not. It’s a general comment to a number of pieces of policy being rammed through in the last little while.

This bill revokes the ability of Māori to maintain equal decision-making power alongside local government. Who, in their madness, would want that? What else do you call that? We know what it’s called. The fact that you might not own up to it—but here we go. The groups that were set up at that time—and it was such a short time, but, you know, we were doing some blinkin’ good things. We were thinking about it in a very whānau and hapū way. We had mokopuna in the centre of all the things that impact on Tai Tokerau, but not just Tai Tokerau. I can talk about that because I was part of that group and part of the ideas that just rained and were smart—very mokopuna-centric—and we knew what we were doing. Why did we know? We knew better than local governments, actually. Why did we know? Because we walk those areas, we understand all of the waterways, we understand our whenua, we understand our settings better than anybody.

But, suddenly, some smart—well, no, not smart; some blind-minded thinking person decides that they know better than Māori about Māori land, about Māori whenua, about Māori resources, about Māori mokopuna and Māori children and marae. They think that they know better. What a nutty thing to do. What a dangerous thing to do. It’s no different to our Māori wards—ridiculous behaviour that’s going on now, to say, “No, no, we don’t need any of that Māori stuff. We don’t need any of that takiwā stuff.”, like I just heard from the left. We all know what you’re saying. You are saying: “If it’s Māori, that means its Treaty, that means it has no place in this coalition.” What a dangerous and bad thing to do. You will suffer by your thinking and your decisions. You will suffer by it. Bring on 2026.

So, by ignoring the role of Māori in the delivery of water services, this House simply passes the challenge on to the next generation—good on you. Removing these provisions is not progress; it is reform, it is regression, and it is deeply and only racist. Just own up and say it—just say it. Just, like, yeah, OK, then we’ll know e pono ana koe i wāu kōrero [you are true to your word]. “We can’t help ourselves; we think we know better. We are all New Zealanders—we’re not Māoris. We’re all New Zealanders.”, which is code for “We’re all the same.”, which is really code for “We’re all that same.” Not my same, because if I said we were all the same, I would honour you with all your Māori whakapapa. I would honour you with an 1840 thing that gave you permission to live here, for goodness’ sake! Wake up and read the history. You are only here on the basis of our tūpuna’s grace and kindness, and you are still here on that basis, though the bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A lot of “you”s in there; please find another word.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: All right then; I’ll generalise it then, yet again. All right, that lot—all right. The bill, in all its thinking and design, ignores, dismisses, forgets how you get to live here—how non-Māori, how tangata Treaty get to live here; how tangata moana get to live here, right. One forgets one’s history. I implore you—I implore you—get the education, understand, and understand the grace that Māori and tangata whenua give to all that live here. What an atrocious piece of work. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, to those on my right who are saying, “Stick to the bill”, just remember that the previous speaker did bring the issue up; therefore, it became a debating point.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: They can’t take it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And no comment on the Speaker’s ruling, please, Mr McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Fair enough.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, not fair enough, at all. Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. I call Celia Wade-Brown.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we turn our minds back to the last throes of the election and the insulting and appalling billboards about the original three waters, I think we can see why we have ended up in an unpleasant and messy place. I’d like to quote from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and one might wish that flavours of his political views had continued to today’s National Party, but it would appear not. “The current Bill not only continues the fragmented approach, but in some respects, doubles down and makes for an even more complex, fragmented and incoherent approach. This is more than unfortunate and highlights again that the initiators of this reform had (and still have) little idea of how the environment is managed.” That, members of the National Party, is from one of your own.

Not only will there be higher prices per household, as my colleague Tangi Utikere has mentioned, but also there will be lower standards. Again, Mr Upton calls for some recognition that not all of our receiving waters are the same. He called for the ability for councils to set—or whatever the organisation may be. It may be a council, it may be a council-controlled organisation, it may be a conglomeration, but that they should be able, with the support of their community, to call for higher standards, rather than the lowest.

Also, this water services bill ignores the long-held knowledge, the mātauranga Māori of how water flows, where it runs as ephemeral streams, where aquifers are recharged from, and where iwi wish to continue to collect kai moana. I have been to Takapūwāhia Marae and heard how hurt they are that they cannot provide kai moana to the manuhiri because of decades of sedimentation and of pollution of the Porirua Harbour. Nothing in this bill solves or even recognises those problems.

I also believe that this bill in many ways, in its introduction, has been anti-democratic. There were so many amendments brought in at the same time as members of the three coalition parties were trying to shut down debate. Those amendments did not come before select committee. They were not discussed by the councils, the households, the iwi, in any way, shape, or form. In the Governance and Administration Committee recently, we actually quizzed the Office of the Auditor-General on how many years there were zero questions about the quantum of investment in three waters. There were zero challenges to the three-year budget, the 10-year long-term plans, and the 30-year asset management plans, which would be highly appropriate if all of the highfaluting talk about bipartisan infrastructure—if central government had longer-term budgets that we could see.

It’s going to be financially challenging. I noticed today that the Minister of Finance—whatever her ambitions may be; she’s currently the Minister of Finance—is very clear about the ratings that Government received. Well, 18 councils have had their credit ratings downgraded as a direct consequence of this bill. That means that other borrowings will be more expensive for the councils and for their ratepayers. We will be opposing this bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): We all remember, only two or three years ago, those signs on every motorway overbridge and farm fence: “Stop Three Waters”, and the challenge for the Opposition today and their remaining speakers is to commit to bring back three waters. Let’s see if they’ve got the temerity to bring back three waters—and I don’t think you’ll be hearing that today.

Local Water Done Well: this is the third reading of the third bill. It is giving councils the choice of new water service delivery models. Most are coming to form these multi-council council-controlled organisations (CCOs). In fact, if you look at, say, Mayor Sam Broughton, Selwyn Mayor—not necessarily a friend of this Government—a CCO: they were the first; Selwyn were the first to come up with a water CCO under this legislation. They say—the Selwyn District Council—that a CCO would bring new opportunities to manage and fund water services, separately from rates, for current and future ratepayers.

This is a great outcome for councils, this is a great outcome for communities, and this is a great outcome for Kiwis. I commend the bill.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): When people said yes to having a “get rid of three waters” sign on their land at the last election, I don’t think they knew they were signing up for the kinds of cost increases that they’re going to experience under the legislation that we’re passing today. What we are seeing is an example of the Government making things worse for Kiwi households, making it harder for them to balance their budgets.

So if we have a look around the country, what does local water done well, or whatever they’re calling it, do? So if you live in Christchurch, let’s say just for example, like I do, what we are going to see is water charges increase by $900 a year. If you live in Hamilton, the hike will be $1,700. In Nelson, more than $750. In Dunedin, $1,200 a year increase. And in Selwyn, that the previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, was just talking about and holding up as a poster child, get ready for an $1,800 a year increase in your water charges, because that is what this Government thinks doing water well looks like.

Each and every National MP is going to have to front up to their communities and tell them why they think that extra money on their rates bill is a good idea, and how that is doing something well. Because it is not doing it well; it is doing it badly, and it is taking New Zealand households backwards. It is making their lives harder, not better. Things are getting worse for them, and this will only add to that.

So what does this legislation do? Well, it shifts the financial risk to councils and ratepayers. What the Government said is “Oh no, there are too few entities. There’s not enough room for local decision-making under the previous Government plans. So we’re going to get rid of any of the economies of scale and the money that could have been saved for ratepayers right across this country, and we’ll just let there be a proliferation of water service entities.” How many have we ended up with? Forty—40 water service entities—which is leading to an average increase in water charges for New Zealand households of $1,725.

Now, $1,725 is an awful lot of money for already stretched households to have to put on their budgets. This is money that New Zealanders simply cannot afford. These are costs that this Government is imposing on those households—it’s imposing on them. We heard it from a New Zealand First speaker: when it came down to it, it was all about the billboard and getting rid of co-governance; they want to get rid of it. For that, each and every New Zealand household is going to carry the burden of an extra $1,725, on average, increase in their water charges. Is that making New Zealand a better place? No, it is not. It is making things worse and each and every Government MP is going to have to front up to their constituents and tell them why those increased costs they’re paying are a good idea, because this is not how New Zealanders are seeing it.

So what we have not seen is the coming together to form bigger water entities. As my colleague Tangi Utikere has pointed out, there are no incentives in this legislation for those orphan councils to come in and join larger entities, which would minimise costs for New Zealand households.

Now, we’re seeing this legislation come late in August. It’s pretty lucky that we have got this on the Order Paper for this week—a bit of a surprise from a Government that can’t manage its own legislative agenda—because what is happening on 3 September? That is D-Day for councils to have their water services delivery plans into Government—3 September. That’s why we’re seeing a flurry of these plans rise up at the moment and why it is becoming abundantly clear what the increased cost on New Zealand households will be in each and every location around the country.

The Government has made it pretty clear it’s going to be punitive for those councils that don’t have their plans ready on 3 September. I wonder how those councillors feel about the fact they’re going to have their plans in on 3 September, but the Government’s only managing to get this legislation through the House only a matter of a couple of weeks out from that looming deadline.

What else do we see in there? The coercive compliance model that the Government is imposing through that. So what they’ve said is: if you don’t get that water services delivery plan in by 3 September, that triggers possible Government intervention, including the appointment of Crown water specialists. So this is the Government that was all about local leadership and letting locals take control. They’re saying, “Get it in by 3 September or we’ll just come over the top and we’ll appoint some other people to oversee it.”

That is what this Government is about. It spoke a big game while it was banging up the billboards across the country. It’s an entirely different matter at the next election when they have to go back and explain to some communities, possibly, why they’ve overridden their council and appointed Crown water specialists in their place. How’s that going to look on the delivery of making sure that we have local leadership?

It also pushes the regulatory costs on to councils. Now, one of the things I think that we can all agree on is that there has been an underinvestment over many decades in the water infrastructures around New Zealand. As a country, we must do better. If we want to grow our housing, if we want to grow our cities and produce more affordable housing, then it is absolutely imperative that we upgrade and keep expanding and keep investing in our water infrastructure. But in terms of pushing those costs on to councils, in the way in which this bill that is going through its final stages now is doing, is not going to cure any of those problems.

This is a bill—as one of my colleagues sitting directly behind me keeps reminding the House in a very, very useful way—that just does not add up; it does not add up. If we think about the problems that we’re trying to solve by increased investment in water infrastructure, making everything more expensive from the water charges households will pay to the regulatory burden that councils will carry just does not make sense. But more than that, this also weakens the public health protections that need to be there. Water is vital to our public health in New Zealand. Making it absolutely safe for people to drink the water and dispose of waste water in a way that protects public safety and health is a vital thing and something that’s a minimum that we should expect from our water system. But this makes it easier for small suppliers to opt out of full regulatory oversight.

Now, I want to live in a country that no matter where we turn on the tap, we can have the knowledge, and we can all have the faith, that water will be safe to drink and that it is not going to do harm. When I think about one of the things that is great about New Zealand, and there are many of them, it is actually our clean water—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’re right.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and the access to have that clean water, and we should not be downgrading it. You’re right, Mr McAnulty, it is in some places, and we need to ensure that it is in all of our places that we have that.

We also know that in this bill, there is a failure to protect our water services from privatisation. This is a bill that is not putting in place those protections to ensure that we can have the faith that public ownership gives our water services. So I want to hear the next Government speaker get on their hind legs and reassure this House that there are no plans for privatisation of our water services. Because what we can see, when we look around the world, if we think the bills are being hiked by this Government’s changes, and they are—by, on average, over $1,700 a year—it will only get worse if there’s a privatisation of it.

We are disappointed we cannot support this, but this is a bill that increases the cost for New Zealand households. It makes it worse, not better, for them. It downgrades our environmental protections, and it downgrades our health protections. Thank you.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have a little bit of context. One of the previous members’ contributions—Tangi Utikere—talked about how these councils are being forced, which is rich given that mega four entities were bestowed upon the previous lot. Megan Woods talked about the expense. Well, let’s talk about expense. Let’s talk about the $1.2 billion; and what have we got to show for it? I’ve got a pie graph [Mr Hamilton holds up and points to a pie chart], and a third of that was just consultants and advisers; one-third—$400 million—on consultants and advisers. What have we got to show for that? Nothing. We’re quick to forget—what about the Better Off Fund? Tangi Utikere talked about “Where’s the incentive for the orphans?” Remember the Better Off Fund? Let’s give councils $500 million to get on board with our commanding rule! That’s ridiculous. Well, I’ve got to say: goodbye; three waters; hello, Local Water Done Well. Goodbye, co-governance; hello, locally chosen and designed options. Goodbye, four mega entities—you nod your head, but you know I’m right—hello, localism and choice.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Amongst all the clapping and cheering and hooting, I want us to remember why we needed to reform water services in this country. The previous Government was working on it; this Government is working on it.

Now, Havelock North is a lovely town. I’ve visited it often. It’s a really pleasant place to go to, and it’s a great place to go on a holiday and a great place to go on a wine tour. But just a very few years ago, the water supply there was contaminated, and four people died and many others became very, very ill indeed.

We have a problem with our water services in this country, and we all acknowledge that. We all acknowledge the need to have good water services. We all like to be able to go places and just turn the tap on and drink the water, and that’s part of the point of trying to reform water services, but this plan does not work. This plan pushes extraordinary costs on to households. This plan pushes all the responsibility out to local councils and it has central government taking no responsibility for funding the much-needed upgrades of water infrastructure.

This plan brought to us by that Government means that people in Christchurch will pay another $900 a year in rates—that’s a lot of money. People in Nelson will pay another $750 a year in rates. People in Hamilton, Mr Hamilton, will pay another $1,700 a year in rates. People in Dunedin will pay another $1,200 a year in rates. People in Wellington—not a city where most of us live, but we are here, week after week after week. The people that we live amongst for much of the time as we’re doing our jobs will pay up to, it’s estimated, an extra $4,800 a year in water rates. They’re extraordinary numbers.

Now, we know that work needed to be done on our water infrastructure, but where that Government has got it wrong is the extent to which they are pushing the costs of this on to local ratepayers. You see, when they campaigned so vigorously against three waters, when they got all flustered and flurried about it, and when they said that the best thing to do was localism, what they did not say clearly was that it meant pushing the costs of this out, as well. If we talk about having a fiscally sustainable water solution, this is not it, and it is not sustainable because of the costs it pushes on to ordinary households.

That’s not the only fault with this bill. Another one of the faults of it is the extent to which, under the guise of promoting localism, it will instead allow the Government to go in and tell local councils exactly what they must do.

Now, under the guise of choice—a word that was used out there—we were told that local councils could choose who to join up with in order to provide water services. But all along we asked the question: what about Auckland councils? What about those who are getting left out? We know that some councils are getting left out because they have too small a ratings base and they have too few connections to make it financially viable for anyone else to take them on. In some areas, we’ve had regional entities try to get stood up and people try to work together to get these water services going, but those local entities have fallen over. That’s happening in Taranaki, in South Canterbury, and in the Western Bay of Plenty—areas where these proposed water services entities won’t get stood up because it can’t happen. What does that mean? It means that central government is going to come in over the top, and tell them exactly what to do.

So those members cried localism and they campaigned on it, but when push comes to shove, they are not going to do it. They’re saying with one hand one thing, and doing something completely different. They should be ashamed of that.

I invite the members of that Government to read the excellent analysis from Thomas Manch over the past few days in the papers; have a look at the in-depth criticisms of this proposal, and think again about why they are voting in support of this legislation. They should not do so. If they support localism and if they support low costs for households, they should join us and vote against these bills.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): We campaigned on scrapping Labour’s three waters, and we delivered. We campaigned on our own Local Water Done Well policy, and today, we deliver the third tranche of reforms of Local Water Done Well.

It is a great day for councils up and down the country, for autonomy and flexibility to design water services for their communities. It’s a great day for ratepayers, who get to keep their water assets intact and have limited rates rises as a result. I don’t know where they get their figures from, but we are confident that they will face lower rate rises as a result.

It’s a great day for New Zealanders, because no longer do we have the divisive co-governance policies under the previous Labour Government. This law that we are passing today is all about the basics: ensuring councils can fund and deliver the basics of water infrastructure right across New Zealand. It’s a plan that works, and I commend it to the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In a debate like this, it’s always quite telling what Government MPs have to say. Now, throughout this debate, there have been many claims, based on evidence and fact, that this bill will see significant increases in rates bills. Now, one might think that if those claims are being made in this House, Government members would want to take the opportunity to refute that. Those are pretty massive claims. We’ve heard figures in the thousands for various communities around this country, but did they do that? No, they didn’t. They read their key lines, and they sat down.

Now, if this was such a significant day for the Government, I would have assumed that they would want to take the opportunity to explain how this bill will make it better for New Zealanders. Ultimately, they campaigned on improving the cost of living, and, as we know, if we look across the board, they are actually making it worse, and there’s no better example of that than this bill.

Now, I have studied the ruling of the Speaker this afternoon in question time, so I’m going to be very careful with my language here, but there have been some repeated lies all amongst this broader conversation around water reform. It is unfortunate because, as my colleague Dr Deborah Russell mentioned, what started this entire debate was, essentially, an entirely regrettable situation where people died as a result of consuming water that should have been safe. When we opened up the hood—in fact, it wasn’t us; it was a previous National Government under Anne Tolley. When Anne Tolley opened up the hood, she recognised that the system was broken, it was utterly unsustainable, and no cheap political PR exercise was going to fix it. They commenced that work to review the delivery of three waters across this country. We came into Government and continued that work.

Now, what was clear is that councils cannot do this by themselves, and what is also clear from councils’ own figures is that this country needs to find $185 billion over the next 30 years. Now, that’s the first figure that I have mentioned, but it is still more figures than any of the Government contributions in this debate so far. None of them have stood up and said how this plan will add up, and I’ll tell you why: because it doesn’t. I’ll tell you something else: they know it.

In communities like Northcote and Upper Harbour and Hamilton and New Plymouth and Christchurch and North Otago and Maungakiekie and Bay of Plenty and Southland—in every single one of the communities that are represented by members here tonight—rates are going up because of this bill, and every single one of them is going to vote for it.

Now, I mentioned earlier that there had been some repeated lies throughout this broader conversation. What is interesting is the way that they have gone about this, because, in their own documents—in the Government’s own documents—the advice is quite clear that Local Water Done Well, so-called, does not add up. It’s in their own documents. Did they refer to the advice today? No, of course they didn’t, because it doesn’t add up. Councils’ own figures showed that over the next 30 years, $185 billion needs to be found, and this model, which is, essentially, a carbon copy of the Castalia modelling, doesn’t add up, so isn’t it interesting that Simeon Brown, who was the Minister at the time, went on councils’ long-term plan numbers, which have projections over the next 10 years?

Even then, it doesn’t really add up, but they can just make it look like it does. They have neglected deliberately—this is a deliberate political decision—the councils’ own projections from year 11 to year 30. They knew that councils had backdated most of that work between that period, so it would be disingenuous if anyone were to claim that the 10-year long-term plan period is one-third of the projected work, because it isn’t. The only way that they could make this look like it added up was to take a fraction of the projected costs, and they did that deliberately, and they knew that they were neglecting years 11 to 30.

Now, the public will soon be bearing the consequences of that disingenuous approach. How can they stand up and say to New Zealanders that this adds up when they know from their own advice that it doesn’t? It is extraordinary. The cost to ratepayers will be in the thousands. This is, in some places, going to cost them more than the status quo. It is extraordinary, and it is actually unbelievable. This is a momentous day in the sense that the next time New Zealanders get their rates bill and they see a significant increase, which they will, they can think back to today and they can think back to the regions that I just read out earlier and see if their local member of Parliament has participated in this debate. Perhaps they might like to contact them, because every single one of the Government MPs is about to vote for significant rates increases. We already know that there are people who cannot afford to keep their homes, because of rates increases.

Now, they will say, “Oh, no, we’ve capped rates.” This isn’t capping rates—$900 in Christchurch isn’t capping rates; $1,700 in Hamilton isn’t capping rates. The list goes on. All this Government is doing is smokes and mirrors, and what the country needs is an upfront conversation about the state of the problem. They campaigned, and they whipped up hysteria about what? Not about the cost, but about Māori being on the regional representative board. Why couldn’t they just say it? Why couldn’t they just swallow their pride and say, “Look, actually, what is being proposed is proven to work, but we don’t like Māori on that group.”, which wasn’t an ownership group, which wasn’t a governance group but was a regional representative group. Actually, that’s all they didn’t like, because they knew it would get them cheap votes in an election campaign.

They got into Government and they realised, “Actually, do you know what? The thing that we promised New Zealanders would work actually won’t work, and we probably already knew it wouldn’t anyway. I don’t know what we’re going to do. I know, we’ll screw the scrum, we’ll fiddle with the figures, we’ll make it look like it’s going to work, and when it really hits home, it’ll be somebody else’s problem to deal with.”

But their calculation is mis-skewed to one little degree: it won’t be in 18 months’ time when this hits home; it will be immediately. There will be people that simply cannot afford their water bills. There will be people that lose their homes because they cannot pay these bills. It’s happening already, so they can’t deny it won’t happen in the future.

Now, there’s one more Government call left. Will they stand up and explain to New Zealanders, in the 10 minutes that they have, how this bill makes it cheaper for ratepayers? No, because all they have is this inaccurate claim that $1.2 billion was spent and that none of it went into infrastructure. We’ve heard it here tonight. It’s just not true. It is not true; $527 million of the $1.2 billion went into water pipes, so the best argument they’ve got isn’t true. I think that sums it up. Why should New Zealanders have to put up with this and put up with a Government that has no interest in actually sorting the significant issues that we are facing? No community is immune—even Auckland. No one.

This bill affects every New Zealander, and every New Zealander in the midst of an ongoing cost of living crisis will have even less money now, because even if they don’t pay their rates, they will through their rents. Landlords will be faced with increases of thousands of dollars a year because of all of them, and you know what’ll happen: they’ll put rents up to cope with it. This will impact every Kiwi in the pocket. Why? They’re too arrogant to say that their plan won’t work.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t part of the select committee that was associated with the committee stage of this bill. But I have had a bit of time in local government, and I saw the challenges around the water infrastructure that this bill is all about. I sort of questioned myself: how do we get to the spot? There are correct statements made on the other side of the House that we had a terrible, terrible outcome, which was the Havelock North situation. But I think it comes well before that, the reason as to why we’re in this predicament here. I think it’s around the construct of local government. What I mean by “the construct” is, I think, it’s about how do we actually elect our counsellors to councils, to territorial local authorities (TLAs), who are the ultimate decision makers—through their management and consultants—when they’re making decisions? I’ve seen far too often candidates for councils running on the mandate of keeping rates down, bang the table—“I’m going to make sure rates are going to be down” type of thing. I say that that is a very, very worrying comment. It should be a statement of every dollar we spend—every ratepayer dollar that we spend—should be a well-spent dollar. It’s a difference; it’s a difference.

So how did we get here? I think that we’ve had decades of underinvestment. We’ve had decades where councils have not paid attention to this very, very important infrastructure, this very, very expensive infrastructure. There’s no doubt about it that there are councils or there are areas within New Zealand that have got significant spends ahead of them, whether it’s one year ahead, five years, 10 years—big, big spends. It’s going to cost money. There are going to be increases in the cost of water because there has been such an underinvestment in this infrastructure. This is a rescue package of where we’ve got to with local government. That is my personal view, OK?

There are councils in New Zealand that have actually done a good job. I know that in Taranaki we’ve got some councils that have invested significant amounts of money in their infrastructure, and when they are needing the next lot, it’s actually well, well ahead. They are concerned that they are going to be subsidising next-door neighbours or other councils in the near term, when they’ve actually done a great job themselves as a council.

That is the challenge of the decision-making councils—whether they should amalgamate or not with other councils—and that’s part of the challenge of what they’re trying to get around with regards to it. This is all about ownership and control. What we heard clearly through our campaign, before the last election, is that the three waters that was proposed was taking away the control and ownership of these important infrastructure pieces for these councils themselves. That’s what it was all about, so we’ve come up with the proposal here, where they retain the control, retain the ownership, and they can actually deliver it via a vehicle of which there are a number of options there. We are not dictating how they shall do it. They put the proposal to the Government, and it is assessed to make sure it can be enduring and sustainable into the future. It’s choice. It’s maintaining that localness; “subsidiarity”, if you want to put a title onto it.

This bill here is actually doing a lot of stuff that’s moving in the right direction. It does have a cost—it does have a cost—and it’s socialised, hopefully over a bigger scale of people. This is about trying to gain scale by joining councils together—largely, but not in every case. There are some councils that will, I believe, demonstrate that they can stand alone, on their own two feet; and if that’s the case, I think the Government should be supportive of that. This bill here—or two bills, which are here in this third reading—is the final of the trifecta of all the different pieces of work that need to be done legislatively, to be able to now put in place the mechanisms for the community of New Zealand to move forward with regards to this important water infrastructure. I commend the Bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Forestry: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I'm proud to stand in support of the second reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. This bill represents a thoughtful and necessary evolution in how we manage land use under the emissions trading scheme (ETS), one that reflects our climate ambitions, our commitment to rural communities, and our vision for a balanced, resilient future for New Zealand.

This Government's position is that there is a place in New Zealand for both forestry and for agriculture to be growing our economy from the rural heartland, but doing so in a balanced way that doesn't see some of our most versatile and productive soils lost to forestry. We have heard the concerns from the rural sector about the high levels of sustained tree planting that have been driven by the ETS at the expense of productive farmland. If the current rates of full farm conversions continue unaddressed, we risk unintended consequences for our food production, our economy, our rural communities, our agricultural supply chains, and our land-use flexibility.

This bill follows through on a key election commitment and will protect our most productive land for food production whilst enabling sustainable growth of the forestry sector and continued progression towards our climate change targets. It does this by amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to limit farm conversions to exotic forestry on Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1 to 6 from registering in the ETS, except where there is an exemption, limit, or allowance.

When we debated this bill at first reading, the House was united in recognising the need to address the rapid and often irreversible conversion of productive farmland into exotic forestry. We acknowledged the risk of perverse incentives and agreed it was time to make a change.

Since then, the Environment Committee has done excellent work under tight time frames, and I want to thank the committee members and the many submitters who engaged constructively with the bill. Their feedback has led to five key improvements that I believe make this legislation stronger, fairer, and more future-focused, but all of them continue with the direction that this House unanimously agreed during the first reading.

Firstly, we've clarified the definition of “unfarmed land”. Originally, the definition risked excluding land from ETS registration if any exotic species had been planted in the five years since farming ceased, even on marginal land. That wasn't the intent. The revised definition now focuses on forest land establishment on LUC class 1 to 6 land, allowing exotic planting on class 7 and 8, and allowing areas under one hectare, such as shelter belts, to be planted without disqualifying the title.

This change ensures that genuinely unfarmed land can still be used for exotic forestry while protecting our most productive soils. It is a practical fix and it reflects the reality on the ground where land owners often use shelter belts or plant small areas for erosion control. We're not punishing good land stewardship; we are encouraging it.

Secondly, we've improved how mapping standards are managed. Rather than prescribing mapping standards through regulation, the bill now empowers the Environmental Protection Authority to issue them directly. This would provide better consistency with the way that mapping standards are currently issued for the forestry Emissions Trading Scheme. It's a small administrative change, but it reflects a bigger principle that our land-use management tools must be agile, responsive, and grounded in good science.

Thirdly, we've removed the exemption for offsetting land specifically for post-1989 forest. This was a potential loophole. Under the original bill, ETS participants could have used post-1989 offsetting applications to register exotic forestry on LUC class 1 to 6 land, sidestepping the new restrictions. That would have undermined the intent of the bill. The committee has rightly closed that gap. The exemption now applies only to pre-1990 offsetting where the risks are lower and the policy rationale is clearer. This change protects the integrity of the ETS and ensures that offsetting doesn't become a back door for large-scale conversions.

Fourthly, we've made the allocation system for LUC class 6 land more efficient. The bill reserves a portion of the annual allocation for small applications—a good idea that supports small land owners and community-led forestry. But as introduced, any unused portion couldn't be reallocated. That risked leaving hectares on the table. The committee has fixed this. Now, if the reserved portion isn't fully used, it can be redistributed. That means we can make full use of the available land while still prioritising equity and access.

Fifthly, we've strengthened the transition exemptions. We all agreed that land owners who had already begun investing in forestry conversions before the policy change should be treated fairly, but the original drafting was too loose. It allowed exemptions based on a single qualifying investment even if the applicant had no clear interest in the land. The revised bill now requires both a clear interest in the land and one or more qualifying forestry investments. Both must have occurred prior to the policy announcement date of 4 December 2024. A clear interest means ownership, a registered lease or forestry rights, a sale and purchase agreement, or a written offer to purchase the land that had either been accepted or there has been a written intention to negotiate further.

Qualifying investments include emissions rulings, activities under the Resource Management Act, and other forestry preparation activities such as seedling orders or land preparation. This means that neither a seedling order nor a land purchase agreement would, on their own, qualify for a transitional exemption. This is a fairer, more robust test and it strengthens the transitional exemptions so they focus on those who were genuinely acting in good faith.

Taken together, these changes reflect a bill that is more precise, more equitable, and more aligned with our long-term goals. They show that we've listened, we've learned, and we've improved. But more than that, they reflect an optimistic vision for land use in New Zealand—a vision where forestry plays a vital role in our climate response, but not at the expense of food production or rural vitality, a vision where the ETS supports economic development, and a vision where policy is shaped not just by carbon metrics but by community values and environmental stewardship.

This bill is not anti-forestry. It is pro-balance. It is pro - rural resilience. It's part of a broader shift towards a climate response that is grounded in integrity and shaped by the voices of those who live and work on the land. The bill is a necessary and timely response to the evolution in how we manage land use under the ETS, one that reflects our climate ambitions, our commitment to rural communities, and our vision for a balanced, resilient future for New Zealand, so I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its continued progress and I thank everyone who has helped shape it into a better, fairer, and more future-ready piece of legislation. I move, that the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Labour Party will continue to support this bill, but it’s a margin call. It’s a margin call because, although this bill is setting out to achieve some control over the rate at which rural land is converted to forestry, it does not necessarily achieve that goal itself—that conversion can still happen, it does not necessarily protect all of our soils in the way that they need to be protected, and it does not really solve some of the problems with the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme (ETS). We will support the bill, but it is a margin call.

I want to just talk a little bit about why we’ve landed on that position and, first of all, just to talk clearly about what happens in this bill. All our land in this country has Land Use Capability rating on it—Land Use Capability 1 through 8. Land Use Capability 1 is our very finest soils—the finest production soils, around Pukekohe, for example. If we go to Land Use Capability 6, we’re starting to talk about some of the more marginal hill country, the dissected hill country which can be farmed for sheep and beef, but it’s possibly not the greatest. By the time we get to 7 and 8, some of it is unfarmable—so it has different capabilities. Under this bill, each year, a farmer who has land in Land Use Capability 1 through 6 can, over time, put up to 25 percent of that land into forestry that is used for the emissions trading scheme or for getting carbon credits. It’s important to note that other forestry can still continue on other parts of that land.

If the land is in Land Use Capability 6, an additional 15,000 hectares a year can go into the emissions trading scheme, and whoever gets to do that on their farm is determined through a ballot. A ballot is an interesting mechanism. It was hard to understand what might be a fair mechanism. That’s the ballot that the officials and the Minister have come up with. So be it. And, with Land Use Capability 7 and 8, there are no restrictions on how much land in there can go into forestry which is used for carbon credits in the emissions trading scheme. It’s quite a complicated bill, and it is absolutely right for the Minister to say that rural communities have been calling for some measures to restrict the changeover of farms from farming—from sheep and beef farming particularly—into forestry. People have talked about how it has impacted rural communities—how, as farms are converted into forestry, rural families leave—and it has quite a big impact on communities. Madam Speaker, I’m sure you might know this from down your way as well, down in Westland.

On the surface, addressing this problem looks like a good thing, but I do see three areas in this bill where we actually just need to think a little bit carefully, and we have thought through carefully and have come down on this margin call. I want to talk about the effect on rural communities, I want to talk about the use of soils, but primarily I want to talk about the lack of attention to the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme. In terms of the effect on rural communities, the assumption is that this change—this new legislation—will slow down the conversion of whole farms to forestry. Actually, it won’t. Land Use Capability 7 and 8 can still go entirely into forestry for the emissions trading scheme. But, if we look at what has been said by Beef + Lamb New Zealand, they’ve said that even under these changes that are being put through, they’re still too permissive. They still estimate that up to 26,000 hectares of whole farms on land classes 6 and 7 could still be converted each year. Their concern is that class 6 land, they say, is the most productive in the sheep and beef sector, and even class 7 land is economically viable, but if the conversions proceed, a further 650,000 hectares could be lost to forestry by 2050.

Now, it’s not just the land lost to forestry; it’s the fact that, with forestry, there are fewer people in each district. That’s families moving out because the farm has gone to forestry, which doesn’t need a whole family on it to farm it. That means that the local school loses enrolments. It means that it may no longer be viable to run a store out on the back blocks. There’s a whole lot of services that are lost along with the loss of people, so I think there could still be an impact on local communities. I guess we will have to wait and see how this particular legislation works out. It might slow down the rate of forestry conversion. It’s probably worth a go, a margin call for us. We will support it that far.

In terms of the use of soils, it does concern me that some of our very best soils can still end up being used for forestry—for exotic forestry—in the emissions trading scheme. It’s amazing travelling through Pukekohe, through other immensely fertile areas, and seeing what can be grown there and how lush it is, how wonderfully fertile those soils are. It does seem a shame to leave open that space where those immensely productive soils could be converted into forestry. However, this does still permit this. I guess one of the reasons for that is we do want to ensure that land owners can make decisions about what they do with their land and not to interfere too much, but it’s a very fine balance on that one, as we’re seeing from this legislation in the first place.

In some ways, I think, if we’re going to intervene with decisions that land owners make, why not just go the whole hog and say you can’t put class category 1 in at all? It might be a good thing to do. If we’re going to go down this interventionist path, why not go a whole lot further? But I think the real thing here that really worries me is that, although this bill is named as it is, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill—so it comes into the category of climate change—it doesn’t do what we need to have done with forestry in the emissions trading scheme. The way our emissions trading scheme is set up, we are one of only two countries in the world that allow a one for one on forestry in the emissions trading scheme. One tonne of carbon emitted can be soaked up by one tonne of soaking up done by trees—in and out, and in and out.

There’s a couple of difficulties with that. One is that, obviously, it then does create the incentive to turn land over to forestry instead of food production. It could be a good thing to do, but, more importantly, forests are not necessarily a very permanent carbon sink. That’s the analysis from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who had a big report out recently on the use of forestry in the emissions trading scheme. Forests need maintenance, they need to be looked after, they need weeding, they need pest control, and so on. It’s not always clear that that happens with carbon forests. We actually need to have a big think about the role of carbon forests in the emissions trading scheme. More to the point, if we continue using forestry in the emissions trading scheme, the analysis suggests that, if we continue to do that, we will reach using forestry credits net zero in the emissions trading scheme in about 10 years. What it will do is it will undermine the price of credits in the emissions trading scheme.

It’s a complicated problem to solve, and it does need to be solved, in terms of how we use forestry in the emissions training scheme and, in fact, how the emissions training scheme works altogether. There was a long analysis from Radio New Zealand reporter Kirsty Johnston this morning, talking about the various climate-related endeavours that have been delayed, defunded, or discontinued under this current Government, and sitting amongst them was something that was happening under the previous Government but is no longer happening, and that was the role of forestry in the ETS. We actually need to have that review done, and it needs to be done soon. This bill is not it. I would like to see some priority given to thinking about the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme. So there you have it, Madam Chair: support for this bill, but qualified support.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, we had very in-depth conversations about this bill, as recently as at the Green Party caucus meeting this morning. It is a challenging bill, and we agreed to support it to select committee because we viewed that it's a genuine problem that we're trying to grapple with. But we have come to the determination that we will not be supporting this bill any further unless there are significant amendments made at the committee of the whole House.

The reason for that is that the bill's primary purpose is not actually dealing with climate change. The bill has sought to find some balance between impacting foresters in an unfair way and addressing the loss of particularly sheep and beef land to pine plantations. And while you might take the view—as I remember, Pete Hodgson took so many years ago around climate policy—that if all sides are unhappy, you've probably struck the right balance, I think in this instance, all sides being unhappy—and I mean foresters and I mean Beef + Lamb New Zealand—is an indication that the balance has not been struck right, and, in fact, the bill is something of a dog's breakfast. It is not solving the problem.

We looked really hard at this—to the colleague opposite—and we seriously considered supporting it. But we've come to the conclusion that it doesn't go far enough in actually addressing the problem, and I'll speak a little to what my colleague Deborah Russell just alluded to. One of the impacts of putting restrictions of 25 percent on land class 1 to 6 is that you actually push a whole lot of forestry into classes 6, 7, and 8—and 7 and 8, particularly, is a problem. Now, for forestry to be effective, it should be planted in harvestable areas. We potentially create a problem when we put a whole lot of forestry into very difficult-to-get-to places. We've just seen in Tasman, with the terrible weather events they've had there, whole hillsides of trees bowled over by the weather. Putting more pine plantations in those high, inaccessible land class areas is not a good place to do forestry.

It's conceivable that many of those forests will never be harvested. They will blow over, they will become the fuel for future wildfires as we get worsening droughts, which is one of the consequences of the problem we're trying to solve: climate change. Beef + Lamb New Zealand were very clear that 89 percent of the farms that have been purchased for conversion into forestry in the last eight years have been in land classes 6, 7, and 8, with most of it in those land classes, and only a fraction of it in the lower land classes—I think a total of around 12 percent in land classes 1 through 5. So the restrictions in those land classes is nearly meaningless.

This is something of wallpaper on a political problem. It is not actually going to the root of the problem in solving it. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—and it's interesting, he's been quoted by Beef + Lamb New Zealand, as well—made the point that my colleague just made: that it was never the intention that the purchasing of forestry units was going to be the primary mechanism for us dealing with our emissions. The effect of the constant offsetting to pine trees is that the emissions trading credit price stays low.

One of the submitters who didn't like this bill, amongst others, was the oil and gas lobby. They didn't like it because they would lose their ability to offset to pine trees. That was their fear, and the price of carbon credits might go up. We have a distortion created by the fact that we have forestry as part of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) mechanism to offset fossil fuel emissions, but the rest of agriculture is not in the emissions trading scheme. So we're losing one of our least-polluting livestock sectors—sheep and beef, which emits about a quarter of the emissions per hectare of a dairy farm—to offsetting for fossil fuels.

We're losing agricultural productivity to save the bacon of oil, gas, and coal burning. That's a very problematic distortion, which is why the real solution to this problem is to take forestry out of the emissions trading scheme. That's what the Green Party's position is. We did consider that this bill would serve to set some sort of precedent about intervention into this space—and, therefore, that was useful to move us towards a principle of recognising that offsetting to forestry was not a substantive long-term solution to the problem of climate change. In fact, it's not a solution at all, in reality. We don't believe that is correct, on deeper analysis; in fact, we just need to bite the bullet and solve the problem at its core—at its root.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment pointed out what my colleague also mentioned, which is that we are the only country in the world to permit the unlimited inclusion of forestry offsets in the ETS. This bill “does not deal with the fundamental issues of the use of unlimited forestry offsets”; it “addresses a symptom rather than the root cause”; it will not enhance the credibility of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme, “which needs much deeper reform”; “It is a complex bureaucratic solution that will have high administrative costs”. And this is the message we got from farmers and foresters: that it actually creates a whole lot of complexity in this space. It's the exact opposite of the message we get from farmers all the time, which is they don't want more complexity. “Its regulation is based on very poor information and a land use classification tool that is not fit-for-purpose”, and “It could lead to perverse consequences.”

I was reading from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s submission, there. The land-use class classification system: one of the clear bits of feedback we got through the hearings was that it's out of date. We know this. We have to address that problem in a broader sense. I want to be clear: we need to find real solutions to this problem. We did deeply consider supporting it. We will bring amendments to the committee of the whole House stage to see if we can get the legislation better. But one of the major barriers to that is the ridiculously fast process around this bill.

Had there been more time—had there been a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to look at ways to make this bill more effective and set up a piece of legislation that could last the test of time, which is what we need in this space—then I think we might have been able to get somewhere. But there was exceedingly little willingness to respond to the substantive and very thoughtful submissions that we received from all sides of the argument, from the forestry sector, from the livestock sector, from an environmental perspective.

The Government just pushed it through, as they have done time and time again in this term of Government. On the matter of climate change, on the matter of the emissions trading scheme, we must find a way to work across the House to find lasting solutions in the legislative framework. That will give certainty to farmers; that will give certainty to foresters; and that will address this existential challenge of our time that we are all responsible for finding meaningful legislative and regulative solutions for.

My appeal to sheep and beef farmers who continue to lament the problem they face with the loss of high country farms to pines is to keep the pressure on; keep the pressure on this Government to do what is necessary to address that problem. My message to the foresters: we hear you when you speak of the value that your forestry brings. No one is the bad guy in the room here, and foresters made very compelling cases that, when done correctly, forestry can be a benefit. We certainly have to, in this country, move away from clear felling of plantation forests. The slash problems, the problems of steep country and erosion, is a massive problem for us as a nation. We're a hilly country and we're a shaky isle. We need to move to coup felling of forestry so that we don't get those negative environmental effects. These are part of a suite of challenges we face in our rural land use and our primary production sector.

There are solutions. We need to find solutions across the House that seriously grapple with these issues. Unfortunately, this bill does not seize the nettle.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a wonderful moment that I have, to share in this second reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill.

I’m struck by the degree of common sense that has been conveyed by some of the speeches coming from the other side of the House. But an observation, if I may: this is the legacy of the left, for goodness’ sake. Six years, Mr Abel, this has been a problem, and beyond that. If I can—

Hon Damien O'Connor: No—it’s your coalition partner: Jonesy.

MARK CAMERON: Oh, he’s starting to yell already. That’s right, Damien O’Connor, you can do that, but this is my time to share some thoughts. I’m sure you, sir, will have your opportunity to do so. Six years we’ve had a forestry problem in rural New Zealand. I am struck by the man who said he’s a farmer, and I’d love to know his farming experience, in this moment, when I’m trying to give anecdotes to rural New Zealand and share thoughts, Mr Damien O’Connor, of what forestry actually looks like.

Now, let’s be clear: we are not attacking the forestry sector, as has been shared by the members of that side of the House. But I am aghast that for six years you had opportunity to arrest this rather pernicious issue that was affecting rural New Zealand. Now let's square this up to the people of Taumarunui, say, Awarua, Pahīatua—anywhere provincially in New Zealand that has dealt with this issue. I am struck, all of a sudden, there's a degree of common sense, and we're all on the same page. You guys had six years to arrest this. This is a real bugbear for us in rural New Zealand, who actually live there.

Glen Bennett: Talk about your own selves.

MARK CAMERON: You can heckle and do all of that; I care not. The reality is that this is a real problem. I'd argue this point—

Hon Damien O'Connor: This is Jonesy’s issue.

MARK CAMERON: I would argue this point—and sure, James Shaw was complicit in this, too. Damien O'Connor, I'm sure, had much to share on the issue and did not.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Stick to the truth.

MARK CAMERON: Here we go. How do we deal with the broom? Steve Abel, you, sir, have spoken of the acidification of monocultural forestry all the time. You guys had six years to fix this. We've got real problems with pests, pigs—you name it—possums. This is our backyard, and it is growing massively. How do we square this up? Now, Mr Abel raised a very salient point—

Hon Damien O'Connor: What did New Zealand First do?

MARK CAMERON: Thank you, Mr O'Connor, but I wasn't talking to you. We are dancing on the head of a pin; you are right. Because the previous lot had six years to arrest it and more, and did not. So how do we square up property rights? That is a real issue. I think this side of the House has, arguably, got the balance right. We cannot erode property rights, but we have to square up the contestable. What does it look like when we're protecting private property rights but equally addressing an issue that has languished for a long, long time? This side of the House is taking that issue very seriously—very, very seriously.

We've got an acidification problem; we've got a clear issue in and around woodfall, deadfall, slash. This is not going to be amended. Carbon foresters just plant and leave; we know this. So tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of hectares in our near future are going into trees. No umbrage with the loggers; they're doing a fantastic job, creating an export reality for rural New Zealand, but carbon farming has a price to pay, and we know what it is.

Now, Mr Abel rightly pointed out—after I've shared my anecdotes—some of the egregious nature of the settings inside the emissions trading scheme. I think that member has got it squarely on the button. We have to have a genuine conversation of the drivers of afforestation and carbon farming in New Zealand, separate from this bill. If we square that up, we have listened to rural New Zealand, we have finally made good—no longer languishing on the left or the right, actually attesting that this is a genuine problem and squaring it up for the rural people that grow our food and our fibre and all the wonderful jobs that they create.

Obviously, classes 1 to 6, and the percentages that they can plant, is a happy compromise, in a very difficult political situation, for every side of the House, for every avenue that we pursue. I think when we square up where we land with this, there will be more to do, but given that this bill puts certain prescriptions on certain land classes and the percentages that land owners can plant, it is finding a way forward where we have a happy compromise, in what is arguably a very difficult situation.

I am saddened it languished for so long. Every rural paper you open, you can see this—every rural public meeting anyone of us here has—it says that the bloody pine trees are marching across my community, and I sympathise with those people, because some of us live in those communities. We see our schools shut down; we see the funding and the local roads and the postie, they all go; and we come to trying to square that up. I know Madam Speaker herself would have seen this reality. This is a good bill. It's trying to strike a happy compromise—

Hon Damien O'Connor: Lots of trees on the West Coast.

MARK CAMERON: Oh, the heckling continues over the other side. I just wish that member had something substantive to share. Anyway, I will square-up my contribution by saying this: thank you for those that see the sense in this bill. I think Deborah Russell succinctly laid it out, and good it on her—I don't believe she's a rural person—but it is—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I was born in Whangamomona, for goodness’ sake!

MARK CAMERON: Well, it doesn't mean you still live there—oh, look, she's got defensive. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on what is, arguably, a happy compromise in a very difficult situation.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, or the “do something about the bloody trees” bill, as the rural communities have been calling for. There is no doubt, with the advent of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the rapid rise in afforestation, particularly in later years, it is causing genuine tension in rural communities. It is threatening the viability, and as I said in my first reading speech, I think this is probably right at the very top of a variety of significant issues impacting rural New Zealand.

After the initial investment in this afforestation, it is essentially a “set and forget” for a number of years, whereas land remaining in traditional sheep and beef farming, you’ve got consistent work for your shearers, for your stock agents, for your fencing contractors, for your sheep pregnancy scanners, your vets, your truckies, and everyone that makes such a great contribution to our rural communities. The risk is that they were being hollowed out with depopulation, skills—and then of course you lose your skills and the likes. So this is a significant bill, as Mr Cameron pointed out in his previous contribution.

We've gone from the billion-tree strategy, which I'd note Damien O'Connor has referenced in his heckling—actually this is taking us back to the original intent of the billion-tree strategy that did have quite a lot of restrictions about where you could plant in terms of getting funding. So the intent of that was right tree, right place. What we'd ended up with was any tree, any place, without any guardrails. Today, we take another step in putting those guardrails in place. Of course, there have been significant flow-on effects with the pests—very big issues now with possums, deer, pigs, and bovine tuberculosis (TB). In places in Otago, where I am, where there's been quite a bit of afforestation, we're now seeing an increase in TB, after having pretty well got our arms around that particular problem. So there's far-reaching consequences for the decisions that we have made in this House over time.

If we look to the select committee report—and I commend the Environment Committee for what was a pretty thorough investigation—from my reading of the some of the submissions and from the submitters that I've engaged with personally or New Zealand First has engaged with personally, there were, essentially, two sides. There were the foresters and there were the farmers, and we were getting eviscerated from both sides during that process, which probably means we landed this in about the right place for what we've got at the moment. There was some contention around the extra 15,000 hectares, I think, in the class 6 category, over and above the 25 percent. We have some sympathy with that, but this is what we agreed on with the National Party in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, and we're good for our word. So we think that we have landed this about right.

Classes 6, 7, and 8, we note the foresters and, actually, the farmers—probably the one thing that they did agree on was the potential for some unintended consequences there: driving forestry into more marginal land, which is more difficult to harvest and more prone to slips. Of course, for farming, it's not unproductive land, as is commonly referred to in these debates; it's less productive land, but it's where all the breeding stock are that start the process off, that end up as nice prime stock going to the meat works and into our export markets.

Grant McCallum: It’s the engine room.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: It is the engine room of our systems. So there was some commentary around that, but we've got a review process in place. I think we're going to see how this plays out a little bit. I think we've heard enough around the House today to know that while there is broad support in terms of exactly where we've got these settings right, we're all open to some review and for some reflection, because the significance of getting this wrong is important. It is important to our rural communities, important to our export earnings.

This is not to vilify forestry, as has been said. It's a $6 billion industry. There is a lot more potential to add value to our forestry sector. I think there's too many logs going off unprocessed. There's great potential to do more here. That's a wider discussion. The settings in the ETS that have been referred to, and I note in the minority report, the Labour Party have called on the select committee to have a look at that. I think we'd be supportive of that. We're certainly having those discussions as well. That is a wider issue.

In terms of what was in front of us at the moment, I think this is a really good start. There was nothing in place, essentially, before this. We're making quite a big intervention here, and I think this is where the submitters were still raising the alarm bells over not having gone tight enough; they actually haven't factored in that this is a major intervention. We're a property rights Government, so to take this step is quite a big jump for us, but it shows how necessary it was. I might point out that no one's stopping anyone planting trees anywhere; it's the ability to enter into the ETS that is being limited, which is a Government contract. So if you want to plant your whole farm in trees, that's up to you, but you’ll only be able to enter 25 percent into the ETS in that class 1 to 6.

In terms of the amendments made, I commend the Minister on the changes that he's allowed to come through from the select committee process and have been endorsed here this afternoon. The clarifications, particularly around the transitionary arrangements—this had been causing great angst out in rural New Zealand. There was gaming going on where people that didn't have land but had trees or had some seedlings ordered but didn't quite have the land booked up were actually buying extra or they're buying extra blocks of land and then, because they had extra seedlings and trying to get after that 4 December deadline and trying to spread out their seedlings over various blocks of land, they were trying to game the system against the very clear intent of that 4 December announcement by the Minister. So those that have been trying to game the system, you will be disappointed. You will not be able to enter into the ETS. The amendments made here have clarified that, and I think that did need clarification, so I'm pleased that the select committee and the Minister have done that.

I know there's some tweaks in the other four changes that have come through that select committee process, but clauses 17 and 11A are the key ones for me because the clear intent of the Government was being flouted. We are serious about this. We have undertaken to act, and we are acting, and today is another step along that process. I cannot wait till the gavel goes down on the third reading on this because this is a very big weight sitting over rural New Zealand. We are acting, and New Zealand First are very keen to continue supporting this bill.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of Te Rōpu Kākāriki tonight, and members will have heard already our worry and concerns in relation to this legislation. With a tirohanga Māori, I’d like to bring the voice of tangata whenua into this debate, and the contributions—particularly from my iwi Waikato—and the submission offered by Te Whakakitenga o Waikato, representing 33 hapū, 68 marae, and nearly 100,000 registered beneficiaries.

Waikato was very clear in their submissions in terms of the way that this bill has proceeded and the time frames not being sufficient for tangata whenua to engage in the process. “Why the rush?” was some of what came through very strongly. There was significant complexity in the legislation and it’s of national significance—so, again, why the rush?—and it had limited participation from tangata whenua in this space. There was argument within the policy direction and that was well-signalled in late 2024, but Waikato challenges that that does not substantiate the argument for this truncated process.

Now, we heard from our Minister for rural affairs in terms of his saying that “Everyone is unhappy about it, so we must be getting it right.” That is, of course, really interesting in saying that when people aren’t happy and somehow we’re placing ourselves in the middle ground, then maybe we’re landing somewhere that’s workable, and yet tangata whenua are, of course, split on this issue as well, because it is complex and we didn’t have enough engagement with tangata whenua throughout the process informing where we’ve landed thus far.

I want to talk about the ballot and how the ballot has come through as a theme where the ballot is bad. Going back to the people of Waikato-Tainui, when they talked about the randomised ballot and the permit system for allocating the right to register for land use compatibility (LUC) class 6 land in the emissions trading scheme; it was like a lottery-style allocation, and that lottery-style allocation undermines the Crown’s obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and it overlooks the distinct status of iwi through being partners of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The mechanism of the ballot kind of treats us all the same, as if somehow iwi, small land owners, and corporate entities are all the same, without consideration for the structural barriers and those things which have impacted historically and contemporaneously on Māori as tangata whenua, have been impacting for land use for generations.

In land use, for generations, Māori have been impacted, and Waikato-Tainui laboured on this point in terms of the way with which we, as Waikato-Tainui, want to engage with the Crown. They want to engage with the Crown and find workable solutions, and that’s been a theme echoed for the last 18 months, which is that Māori want to come to the tēpu and work with the Government on workable solutions across legislation.

But when we take a truncated approach to the development of policy and legislation, and cut out the voice of tangata whenua, leaving us to be a marginal forming of a group that might be an advisory that comes through that, then tangata whenua, hapū, iwi, and whenua Māori are pushed to the side as an average stakeholder, which of course undermines the fundamentals of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and that important relationship of Māori with the Crown. Now, of course this policy recognises the centrality of Māori within forestry and in land use, but the way that we, as whenua Māori, are overrepresented in the LUC classes that we’re discussing really shows that Māori need to be at the centre of the conversation in developing legislation like this, because, ultimately, we’re going to be the ones impacted and we’re going to be the ones with the restrictions.

I do look forward to where we can discuss the exemptions proposed; I do look forward to examining this further as we get to the committee of the whole House, and I’m really looking for the workable solutions that Māori put forward in some of the submissions. But I also continue to hear in community and in whenua Māori that “It shouldn’t be over now.” If there is going to be a review, what does that look like, and how will you place tangata whenua at the centre of that conversation?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Members, time has come for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House has resumed. Before we broke, it was the second reading on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, and we are on call No. 7.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker—appreciate it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the second reading of this very important bill. I must say it's been great listening to the contributions around the House and the fact that other parties have recognised that we have got a challenge in this space around the carbon farming and the use on good grazing land. It was noticeable that in the last Government and then during the campaign, there was little actual solutions put on the table. The National Party campaigned on some solutions, and that is what we're delivering here today. Because we understand the sensitivities around it, as someone from rural New Zealand, in Northland, where the carbon forestry has gone on to land it should never have been on. So we're limiting the areas on class 6, which is great, but the important thing that was highlighted by the previous speaker: is there a review in this process so we can monitor how things progress? It's important for the long-term future of rural New Zealand and our sheep and beef country that we put a stop to unnecessary carbon farming on good land. With that, I commend the bill.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe e te Māngai. Otirā ko te hiahia kei roto i a au i tēnei wā i te tuatahi, e te Māngai, ko te mihi ki ngā mate huhua o te wā. Kātahi anō au ka hoki mai i te wā kāinga. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa kua hoki atu ki te wāhi ngaro, kua hoki ngātahi koutou.

Kāre au e pīrangi ki te whakahua ingoa nā te mea he maha hoki koutou kua hokihoki atu ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou, te tangata. Nā reira ki a koutou mā, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

Tēnei te tangi aroha ki ngā whānau pani maha i tēnei wā.

Heoi anō rā, e te Māngai o te Whare, ki te kōrero au mō te wāhi ngaro, ka hoki aku whakaaro ki tētahi o ngā whakatauākī, arā “whatu ngarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua”.

[To the Speaker of the House, thank you. Indeed the desire within me at this time, first, Mr Speaker, is to acknowledge the many recently deceased. I have just now returned from home. I acknowledge all of you who have returned to the unseen place, who have all returned together.

I don’t wish to name any names because there are so many of you who have all returned to the true home of ours, of humanity. And so to you all, go on, rest in peace.

I grieve with compassion with the many bereft families at this time.

However, Mr Speaker, if I were to speak of the unseen place, my thoughts return to one of the proverbial sayings, i.e., while man eventually disappears from this realm, the land remains.]

In my short time as forestry spokesperson for the Labour Party, I’ve come to truly appreciate the fight to preserve both. Tā Āpirana Ngata famously said, “Ko tō ringa ki ngā rākau a te Pākehā hei oranga mō tō tinana”—with your hand, master the arts of the Pākehā, for your physical wellbeing. In other words, to earn a living. In his time, he advocated farming—these days, it’s artificial intelligence (AI)—and throughout my time, the forestry industry has provided pride and proficiency of skill and financial security for so many whānau.

Successive weather events such as Cyclone Gabrielle have seen mass devastation of our whenua. “Slash” has become a part of our everyday vocabulary. We all want to do better by our whenua and our people. This bill, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, intends a balancing act between the urgent need to address climate change and, of course, protecting productive farmland, rural communities, and, importantly, honouring rights and aspirations of Māori land owners—also relevant to my portfolio of the Māori economy.

Colleagues before me have laid out the intended purposes of this bill—i.e., it prohibits exotic emissions trading scheme (ETS) forestry on Land Use Capability (LUC) classes 1 through 5. I'll summarise: on Land Use Capability class 6, moderately versatile land, a cap of 15,000 hectares per year will apply, allocated via a national ballot system, including reserved quotas for small block-owners. Farmers remain permitted to forest up to 25 percent of their LUC 1-6 land, ensuring flexibility to diversify operations. Exemptions are provided for indigenous forestry, unmapped or unfarmed land, erosion-prone land, Crown land partnerships, and, critically for Māori, specific categories of Māori-owned land, including Treaty settlement land and land held under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. The bill includes transitional provisions for those who made forestry investments between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024, allowing those to proceed as planned. These changes are expected to take effect October 2025, with, as the member opposite has referred to, ongoing review.

These are all noble intentions, but even in the limited time I had hearing submissions on this bill, there were differing views on land use and a lot of debates—and even confusion—about the quota system. That said, I'd like to acknowledge all the members of the Environment Committee for allowing me to attend their select committee and hear many of the submissions.

Then there are the considerations for Māori interests. They are laid out in the departmental report, but it's probably just easier for me to summarise based on the conversations I've had. It's sort of been referred to, or acknowledged, that this is quite an emotional topic: not only forestry but preservation of whenua, preservation of economy. And that is something that's certainly a consideration for Māori land owners and land owners with Māori forest interests. Some of their land is so marginal, that's all it's good for: as the use of carbon forest. So the fact that these are being well considered is something that I absolutely support.

One of the main messages I got from people in various conversations I had, in kōrero, in particular with Māori-land interests, is we were heavily incentivised to get into forestry, and we need to be incentivised to get out. So any kōrero, any kaupapa that's going to support that in a sustainable way—support whānau, support whenua Māori interests, support whānau Māori economical interests as well as whānau throughout Aotearoa—is something that we support. That is why, though supporting this bill, Labour's position is that significant work remains to be done. We all know that. I've acknowledged that this is an emotive issue, but one that we all know is critical not only to the preservation of our whenua but for the growth of our economy as well.

The forestry is on the brink of collapse in Tairāwhiti. I was quite shocked before: when I used to plan my trip from Rangitukia to the airport, you used to plan it around the logging trucks so you didn't have to overtake 11 logging trucks on our immaculate road. On my trip two weeks ago, I think I saw one logging truck. Whānau are leaving. We do need to find ways to maintain sustainable incomes so that the East Coast can flourish—not just the East Coast but communities impacted by this industry can flourish. It is about balance. We know our land is suffering and we know our people are suffering. This is, for a lot of people and a lot of our whenua, about survival. So we have to get this right.

I started with a whakataukī: whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. Well, as you know, Mr Speaker, ko tētahi atu o ngā whakataukī: [another of the proverbs:], toitū te whenua, toitū te tangata. [When our land thrives, people will thrive.]  

So kia kaha tātou. Labour do support this bill, but there is much, much more work to be done on it. Tēnā tātou.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to speak on this, the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. It’s always great when we’ve got some level of bipartisanship throughout the House. I think this is a very pragmatic bill. It may not be perfect, but it’s a start. It puts a line in the sand. It tries to strike a balance. I acknowledge the Minister, Todd McClay, for his leadership in this regard. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Currently, there are no restrictions on how much land you can register in the emissions trading scheme (ETS). I do want to emphasise, I think, the point that a couple of my colleagues have made in their contributions that New Zealand is just one of two countries—the other being Kazakhstan—that allows fossil fuel emitters to offset 100 percent of their emissions with forestry, without any actual obligation to cut emissions through proven technologies like the electrification of transport and industry. So that is the problem definition.

This bill will prevent exotic forests from entering the ETS on the land-use capability (LUC) 1 to 5 lands; it will limit ETS registrations on LUC 6 land to 15 hectares—that’s the ballot system that my colleague Cushla has referred to as well—and then it protects eligible Māori-owned land and provides time-limited exemptions for pre-announced investments as well. So that’s what the bill that we’re debating does.

Now, we’re here at the second reading. We’ve had a number of different submissions at select committee stage. Some have said that the bill doesn’t go far enough; some have said that it goes too far, which is kind of par for the course when we hear submissions on various issues at select committee. The Federated Farmers, basically, said that this doesn’t go far enough to stop the march of pines across New Zealand’s productive farmland. It says that it’s disappointing, that it sends a clear message to rural New Zealand that the march of permanent carbon farms across productive farmland won’t be stopping anytime soon. Basically, they say—and this is to the point that the Hon Dr Deborah Russell made at the start of our contribution on this bill—that if you’re going to go this far, why don’t the Government just go the whole hog? They’ve said that, in reality, only 12 percent of farm conversions were happening on that land—that is the land classed as 1 to 5 land anyway. Our productive hill country—the engine room of the agricultural industry—is still at risk of becoming a giant, pollution-driven carbon farm.

The PCE—the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—was before the Environment Committee recently, talking about some of the work that he’s done, particularly a report examining the drivers of forestry in New Zealand. He made some really good points in terms of wanting us to reflect on the types of forest that we want in the long run. Often, pine is used as a carbon sink. He raised questions around that as a permanent solution. It can act as a carbon sink in the short term, but it’s not ideal in the long term because of its relatively short lifespan and fire risk. He made the point that native species support much greater biodiversity, and that’s something that I would support as well. Although it is slower growing, it does support better diversity and so is better when it comes to environmental benefits. As conservation spokesperson, that sounds good to me.

With the time that I have left, I just want to point to an RNZ report that came out today when we are talking about forestry and the ETS more broadly. Part of the reason that Labour is cautiously supporting this bill is because, while it does go some way, what we really want to see is a review of significant further work that needs to be done with respect to the role of carbon forestry in the ETS. And, basically, there needs to be a full review—a thorough review—of the ETS that needs to be done, with an emphasis on the role of carbon forestry.

I also want to point to the fact that when it comes to climate change and the urgency with which we should be addressing climate change, I have made the point that here in the ETS, one of the issues is that there’s no real obligation to cut emissions. I want to point to a number of things that this Government has cut when it comes to the Climate Emergency Response Fund: the Clean Car Discount, a number of transport initiatives, energy-efficiency rebates, and so much more that would have actually addressed the issue, that also increased the cost of living and takes us backwards as a nation. So while we cautiously support this, we’re not thrilled about it.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to stand and speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. I think this strikes a pragmatic balance between what private land owners can do on their land, and what communities are concerned about when it comes to the afforestation of good land.

So what we’ve got is land that will be Land Use Capability classes 1 to 5 having only 25 percent of that land eligible for carbon credits; 15,000 hectares a year of class 6 land to go into a ballot; and, within reason, classes 7 and 8 will be exempted. I think this is quite a good balance. I’m looking forward to the review that will happen, because it’s only with the benefit of hindsight we’ll be able to tweak the bill. So with that, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I am a permanent member of the Environment Committee—

Arena Williams: Great committee.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Great committee—a busy committee, it definitely is, and we have some good conversations on the Environment Committee. But I made way for my colleagues who have spoken earlier on this bill for most of the bill, so I didn’t hear all the submissions that everybody else did, but I appreciate that a lot of people did put some very thoughtful work into their submissions, and I’ll reference one of them later. So I thank those people for doing that and note that this bill has gone through a shortened time frame with the select committee, and that is a shame.

Like my colleagues have said, Labour is supporting this bill, but we don’t think it’s going to fix all the things that people want it to fix, and those things we’ve heard from the other side of the House tonight. The Minister for the Environment, when reading her speech, talked about how it was “a response to local rural communities”, I think, were her words. I know from when I and my colleagues have spoken with rural communities that this is a real issue, that it’s one of the first things that will come up. People will say, “We are really worried about our community schools going. We are really worried, then, that there won’t be the buses to take kids to school. We’re worried that there can be no community halls, those sorts of things, because there are more and more forests, and in those forests, there’re lots of pests.”—we hear about that as well, the deer and the pigs that come out of a lot of these forests.

The forests that they are often talking about—and it’s important that we distinguish between different types of forests here—are carbon forests. Those are forests where the incentive to plant those trees has not been for a shelter belt and it’s not been for timber; it’s been to get some emissions trading scheme (ETS) credits, and that is what this bill is trying to deal with.

There is also other forestry. There are people who plant native trees to improve biodiversity, people who plant native trees for riparian strips and the like, and we know that there’s some work going on for some voluntary biodiversity credits as well. Then, of course, we have plantation forestry so that trees are grown to be chopped down and made into something, not just for any carbon units. Of course, if we’re thinking about climate change in general, having that forestry is important for New Zealand because wood is a lower-emissions product than, say, concrete. So we know if we want a low-carbon economy, then wood is definitely part of that, and forestry in New Zealand is part of it as well.

But this bill is only addressing that carbon forestry part of forestry, and it’s trying to change that incentive whereby the ETS incentivises planting of these exotic trees to remove some of that incentive from some farmland. There are a lot of “some’s” in that sentence, because, of course, we’ve heard that it doesn’t apply to all land classes. It does apply to 1 to 5, but even within those 1 to 5’s, you can still plant some of your land in carbon forestry—so land that’s in the ETS. So that’s 25 percent of beautiful, most productive land that can still be in carbon forestry, and then land use class 6: 25 percent of that can be in carbon forestry as well.

But then, in addition, there’s this special ballot process. I did sit on some of the select committee—not all of it, as I referred to earlier—and I never got to the bottom of why it was that Ministers have chosen to have a ballot. I cannot understand the policy rationale for it, and I haven’t heard it from the other side this evening either. Maybe that’s something that will come out in the committee of the whole House stage of the debate, because it seems to be (1) very complicated and (2) undermining the general policy direction of the bill. However, as my colleagues have said, this is a step in the right direction, and it is better than nothing.

What I think is particularly interesting about this bill, from a policy perspective, is that it’s saying to those land owners, to the farmers, even though we have these market solutions for reducing our net carbon—not gross carbon but net carbon—you can’t use them on most of your land. We heard, I think, Mark Patterson acknowledge that this is a Government that says that it’s very much into private property rights, but, of course, this bill is the opposite of being protective of private property rights. It’s telling farmers that they must limit what they do on their land in terms of carbon forestry, and I think that that is particularly interesting when we also have many policy conversations going on at the moment about this Government’s replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

Of course, the previous Government repealed the Resource Management Act and brought in the Spatial Planning Act and the Natural and Built Environment Act. Those were repealed by this Government, and this Government now says that they’re going to overhaul and replace the RMA with some new legislation. Whenever they talk about this new legislation, there is always the phrase that it will be based on the enjoyment of private property rights, which seems to be in totally the opposite direction from where this bill is going.

Then there are conversations, again—all public conversations—to be able to have that enjoyment of property rights, about whether or not there needs to be compensation for regulatory taking. So that is where, at one moment in time, you can do something on your land and then, at a later moment in time, you can’t do it—maybe that’s chopping down indigenous biodiversity or removing some heritage item or something like that—then you should be compensated. Presumably, that compensation would come from ratepayers or taxpayers.

So there’s a lot of big talk, particularly from the ACT Party, about regulatory takings, yet all three Government parties are in support of this bill, this bill that is limiting what farmers can do with their land. I’m interested to understand the rationale for those two very separate positions, and I haven’t heard it from any of the Government members.

It’s also another disappointment of this bill—and it’s reflected in the submission from the Environmental Defence Society—that the regulatory impact statement didn’t consider the environmental impacts associated with exotic forests. It could have done this, but it didn’t, and there doesn’t seem to have been much consideration of whether the combination of this bill and the existing ETS settings will mean that more people are incentivised to plant carbon forests on that land class 7 and 8. What are the consequences of more pine trees, more exotic trees, being planted on that type of land? These are things that have not been explored very well in the debate so far.

Of course, going back to the start of the problem definition, as my colleague talked about before, it is fundamentally that this Government is relying on the ETS as their main way to achieve net zero, something that the National Party signed up to in 2019 with that zero carbon legislation. So we have the removal of all these other policies, and some of them were named before: there’s no Clean Car Discount, there’s no CERF, there’s no GIDI—that’s a whole lot of acronyms—there’s no mention of circular economy now, anything like that. There’s a good article today on Radio New Zealand that lists all of those programmes that are gone. The entire focus of this Government is trying to offset carbon emissions rather than trying to reduce them, and that is a great shame. It would be wonderful if, instead of sitting over there and giggling, this Government actually did something to cut emissions.

Hon Matt Doocey: Oh, nothing wrong with giggling.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Nothing wrong with giggling? Well, I encourage that party to stop the giggling and actually take some serious action.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. What a great piece of work from our Minister. I just want to say it is very important to us on the coast, this bill—on the East Coast, in my electorate. Whilst I don’t always agree with everything Cushla says, I do tonight.

It is a great piece of work for us. We are banning large-scale farm-to-forestry conversion on high-quality farmland. We are putting the rural economy back where it needs to be, and our Government is backing farmers, restoring balance, and making sure the emissions trading scheme doesn’t come at the cost of the New Zealand rural economy. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five-minute call, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

conversions, so limiting the volume of hectares available for conversions per year, setting out provisions for farmland planting to ensure flexibility and choice, and setting out protections for Māori-owned land in line with Treaty obligations. There are exemptions on certain Māori land blocks. This bill provides for exemptions on certain Māori lands from emissions trading scheme (ETS) restrictions in this bill, principally, Māori land held under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, land which was changed to general land under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, and land under a Treaty settlement.

The consultation process within this bill: Te Tari Whakatau and a small number of Māori stakeholders were consulted on identifying the types of Māori land that fall within these categories. Officials concluded that the exemptions provide certainty for Māori land owners, an opportunity for Māori to exercise rangatiratanga.

Māori and iwi stakeholders were also consulted alongside the public on this policy as a part of the second emissions reduction plan. The Māori entities spoken to were in favour of an exemption and were in agreement with specified exemptions included in this bill. Te Pāti Māori’s position on this bill is that protections for Māori land do not outweigh the negative impact on taiao and the reduction of broader environment protections, because Māori land only accounts for a small number of land-use activities in Aotearoa.

This bill also undermines the integrity of the ETS, and it weakens it further by removing methane, which only limits the scheme further. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill because it lacks intergenerational integrity through failure to include methane.

We support the assertion of kai sovereignty, and I’m not totally convinced that the current proposal is effective enough in providing and ensuring that all whānau in Aotearoa have access to kai. The submission made by Waikato-Tainui about the process is “Waikato-Tainui urges the Crown to work with iwi to co-design the regulatory framework and consider allocation approaches that reflect the Treaty partnership. We recommend the Government adopts a more reasonable timeline that ensures the public, especially those most impacted, can participate meaningfully in the legislative process.” This could include a separate category or allocation stream for iwi applicants, or weighted criteria that recognise the distinct context of Māori land.

Te Pāti Māori does not support this bill. We cannot support a legislative process that undermines fair engagement, proper scrutiny, and Treaty responsibilities. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments relating to acquisition or taking of land for critical infrastructure projects

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): We come first to the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. We begin with a debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 and 5, “Amendments relating to acquisition or taking of land for critical infrastructure projects”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Kia ora, good evening, Mr Chair and members of the committee. I’d like to start by making a few introductory remarks relevant to this part—and, actually, at the risk of testing the patience of the Chair at this early stage, more generally regarding the bill. Thanks to those who have provided input through the select committee process, as acknowledged at the second reading, in anticipation of a good discussion and debate tonight.

As colleagues will know, the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the Public Works Act regime, which of course is crucial for acquiring land and managing land to support infrastructure projects—and, of course, it’s ownership interests, but also other interests, as well; we need that to support infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of New Zealand as a whole, but respecting, of course, the private property rights of landowners from whom that land or that ownership or other interests in land is taken or held.

The finite group to which this legislation, as critical infrastructure, applies relates to approvals under Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act, “public works”, obviously, within that regime, and also the “roads of national significance” as defined and as listed in the Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024. Often, there are costly delays in terms of acquiring land—you know, in the ownership sense, again, or some other interest in land relating to these projects—and colleagues around the house in their respective areas of New Zealand will know that. Of course, the cost properly relates to compensation for landowners—albeit that we could, and indeed will, be more generous in that space—but also the opportunity cost that a community suffers when they don’t have the ability to see that road or rail or other transport network built in a timely fashion, or the flood protection works or other mitigation of natural disaster-type infrastructure, and so on.

We aim for a faster and fairer regime—and those two concepts are not mutually exclusive in my mind—such that we have an accelerated process being proposed by this legislation that will aim to address the key areas to efficient delivery. Key mechanisms within the bill, and more particularly the part that we’re about to examine, are around early acquisition by agreement. Of course, there are existing mechanisms in the Public Works Act for that, and so this is building on those processes and, more particularly, making them faster, but increasing the compensation levels and also introducing, in terms of the process, a written submission as opposed to the right to object to the Environment Court, where, of course, much of the delay and uncertainty and cost is currently accrued.

I should be clear for the committee members: “protected Māori land”, as defined under the Public Works Act—which is detail that we may wish to explore tonight—cannot be acquired under the critical infrastructure process. For various reasons, we thought it proper to enable or continue the regime for protected Māori land, as defined, to continue to have recourse to the Environment Court, but to enable premium payments eligibility for such land if that is ultimately acquired for a critical infrastructure project using the standard Public Works Act process.

In summary, the changes outlined will enable the faster delivery of critical infrastructure that we need and deserve as Kiwis to support and grow our society and the economy. Finally, I give notice to the House that I intend to introduce an Amendment Paper that makes minor and technical changes, some literally in the realm of changing the grammar of singular to plural—or perhaps it’s the other way around—updating cross references, and nothing particularly substantive. But again, colleagues may wish to examine that Amendment Paper—or, indeed, any of their own—and I look forward to that debate and discussion tonight.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Mr Chairman, thank you very much. Labour will have some decent discussions and questions with the Minister as we go through this bill. We do support it, but it is a very important piece of legislation because it goes to the heart of, I guess, a process that has been respected across New Zealand for a long, long time. Building the critical infrastructure the community needs, as the Minister said, is something that I think most parties and most Governments have always supported. But the balance between property rights and property responsibility, I guess you might say—public responsibility—is the balance that we’re always trying to keep here. At a time when the Government’s pushing through reforms to the Resource Management Act (RMA) with the focus on property rights, they’re also bringing into the House this piece of legislation which is actually stepping over private property rights—for good cause, we accept. And the particular projects that the Minister mentions here are in the schedules and they’re specific projects. So this bill doesn’t provide unlimited changes to the Public Works Act, but it does, in Part 1, as I say, relate to the acquisition—taking of land for critical infrastructure projects. They are listed.

So the question I have of the Minister is: did he or did the Government consider actually expanding this out to be wider, to take into account necessary changes or these changes relating to future projects? And if so, why was the decision made not to include them in the schedules here? I mean, it is a critical one because I think there will be people—submitters were suspicious of what the Government was doing here, overriding their rights, not providing them with the ability to automatically review, to go to the Environment Court. As stated, what this does is take away the ability of landowners to go to the Environment Court. They can go and seek a review to the Minister.

The Minister for Land Information holds quite a critical role. And while I do respect Land Information New Zealand as a Government agency and the processes that they have run, this is aimed to fast track or to speed up the process. In doing so—anyone who runs too fast will trip over from time to time. And if this Government is focused on an obsession with property rights, because that’s what it sounds like in some pieces of legislation or changes, then how—and the Minister may be able to explain—have they reached the balance between enhancing property rights through the changes to the RMA and then being prepared to actually roll over them here? It is a fine balance. I think we have always, as a Labour Party, attempted to find that right balance, probably ensuring that the wider public objectives are first and foremost. Of course, property rights are to be respected, but ultimately, you know, we’re here for a short time.

So the questions to the Minister are really around those two questions, and maybe he’ll take a call and answer. I have plenty of other points to raise.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m grateful to the member Damien O’Connor for those thoughtful questions, and I know that as a former Minister for Land Information himself, he will understand some of the balance and the considerations that we are seeking to achieve. He has rightly referred to that balance of rights and responsibilities, and I’m grateful to him for mentioning his faith in the officials of the Land Information New Zealand network, regime, or agency, even.

I think he’s right to pose the question about whether changes could be more broadly applied. Obviously, we’ve got specific projects listed in new Schedule 2A, and the short answer is yes, in the sense that we know that reform to the Public Works Act more generally is needed. There is the work of an expert panel that we’ve convened—an independent panel, I hasten to add—to consider ways that we could make the Public Works Act more efficient in a targeted manner. It is not undertaking a full review of its provisions—for example, it is not looking at questions of disposal—but it is to think more generally about changes that could help in all manner of public works infrastructure. There is work under a separate piece of legislation that is also making its way through this House, or it will continue to do so, as opposed to the critical infrastructure - specific amendments that are being made by this legislation.

In terms of his point around running fast and at the risk of tripping over, again I note that—well, if one is to run fast and not trip over, one needs good balance. So there’s that point again, and I suppose in terms of the mechanisms that provide some comfort to a landowner that his, her, or their property rights will be respected, not only should there be, obviously, robust decision-making by the decision maker, of course—being the Minister for Land Information or the local government entity, as the case may be—backed by official advice, but if that decision maker were to be unreasonable, then by definition that would be potentially subject to judicial review in the High Court, as compared with the Environment Court. There is a measure of a separate branch of Government protection in terms of testing those rights, and recourse to the Land Valuation Tribunal will remain such that in a dispute over the deemed or determined value of the land, that would still be available to landowners.

So, again, we’re seeking to strike a balance, and I suppose that the only other point in terms of the weight of decision making that would rest with the Minister for Land Information, is that I do note, of course—as the member himself will know, having held that role—that one decides on matters of overseas investment for those seeking, as overseas persons, to invest in this country under the overseas investment regime. While that’s obviously a separate matter from this, it’s not without precedence, even in terms of that particular ministerial role, to be asked to make reasonably weighty decisions in terms of property rights and dealings with land in a way that we expect and hope in the case of both regimes will be, ultimately, to the benefit of New Zealand.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am just interested in Amendment Paper 350, in the Minister’s name. At clause 5, there is a new insertion of (v), and it’s about notices of requirements that were lodged under the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023—an Act I was just talking about in relation to a different bill.

Under that Act—the Natural and Built Environment Act—there was a fast-track process, and even though the Natural and Built Environment Act got repealed in December 2023, not all of it got repealed, and some of the fast-track provisions were not repealed and remained in existence. Then, in 2024, this Government introduced and passed its own Fast-track Approvals Act—quite different. But what this amendment is doing is referring to fast-track that was in the Natural and Built Environment Act and was, I think, rolled over; I presume that this is what it is. Because it was alive—the fast-track process—for some time, around a year, maybe. Maybe the Minister can comment.

But my question, really, is to try and work out how many projects will be included in this, by this amendment. So how many projects did the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023’s fast-track provisions allow to roll on a bit longer than when the rest of the Act was appealed in 2023? How many projects actually had a designation, or altered designation—and if the Minister doesn’t know, is he able to find out—and what analysis has been done to work out how many of those projects will be included, and, therefore, included in this legislation?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I think the answer to that will be knowable—it’s not known by me now. I will undertake, if possible within the period of time within the committee of the whole House stage, to furnish the member with that. She’s more familiar than me with the Natural and Built Environment Act; indeed, before its creation in the form of legislation. So she will no doubt be intimately aware of the way in which that provided some manner of fast-track process, albeit with a lower case “f” and “t”, as opposed to the bill.

Hon Rachel Brooking: No, no, it was faster. No, it was faster; it just didn’t override the environment.

Hon CHRIS PENK: OK, well, the member can have her views and debating points on other legislation—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, and I do—and I do!

Hon CHRIS PENK: And she does, but in another forum would be more appropriate, I know that the Chair is thinking. So if it’s possible to know that answer—and we have excellent colleagues from Land Information New Zealand, including no less an authority than the commissioner for lands—then I will certainly share that with the member.

In fact, it might be right now that I’m able to say that the fast-track provisions remain in existence—those under the Natural and Built Environment Act, before, of course, the Fast-track Approvals Act, as the member knows. In terms of how many were applied for under that prior legislation, officials are aware of one project: Cambridge to Piarere. If there are any more than that, then no doubt we’ll hear in due course. But for now the answer is just that one.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Just to clarify: that was a roading project that you were referring to there, Minister?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Yes.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you. My query, really—well, let’s begin with that. We do certainly have an infrastructure deficit, as the regulatory impact statement points to. I’m mindful that it’s been 63 years since we’ve had rail-enabled ferries until today and this is clearly an infrastructure deficit that sits at this Government’s table.

But I note here that the options here are going to be limited to critical infrastructure projects. The query I really have is about what does the Government consider critical. When I look through the list, I can certainly see that there are some that I could consider critical. I think the Ashburton second urban bridge is certainly needed, given the flood risk we’ve had. We’ve been cut off before. But not all roading projects would be arguably critical in this, so I’m interested in the criteria that the Minister for Land Information is using to determine what critical infrastructure is. “Critical”, to my thinking, is more that lifeline infrastructure, and there are many, many projects that are listed here that clearly are not lifeline infrastructure.

Now, I think that what is also missing here is what is the carbon cost of those infrastructure projects, or is there any evaluation of what the carbon cost might be? If we had, for example, a Ministry of Green Works, that would be a requirement for critical infrastructure, for lifeline infrastructure to measure the effectiveness and its carbon content as well.

So a question I have for the Minister is: is there any ability and willingness to look at the carbon cost and whether we can tie down “critical” to a tighter definition. At the moment, it doesn’t seem as though many of the projects are as essential or critical as the bill tends to argue for.

Also, as the Minister will note in our differing view, we really have concerns about the rights of Māori and other landowners to appeal against a Government decision to take their land. So if we could make a strong case why we needed infrastructure, whether it was lifeline infrastructure, and in what way it was critical, it might be more acceptable to override those concerns about taking land in a shorter time frame, but this truncated process doesn’t seem to hold water when we haven’t got a good definition of why it’s so important to make this change here and now.

So coming back, I guess, to my main points, if we can better define what critical infrastructure is, whether it is in fact lifeline infrastructure and whether we are going to be able to look at its environmental and its climate impacts, whether those can be considerations that we have as well, I think that would be really, really helpful, if the Minister would like to respond. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Scott Willis for his thoughtful questions. He’s critical, in the other sense of that phrase, of, I suppose, the way in which we’ve arrived at the definition of “critical”, potentially. But in any case, it is a certain matter that the projects listed in the schedule are those included in critical infrastructure. So by way of definition, I suppose I can do no better than to point to those specifically and to say that the reason they have been included in the schedule is precisely because they are capable of approval under Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act, or of being roads of national significance as defined in the Government policy statement.

Of course, reasonable minds can differ on the criticality or the essential nature of such projects. I note, in the case of a couple that affect my own electorate—the Northwest Rapid Transit, for example, which is going to be about public transport infrastructure to serve the growing northwest Auckland. You know, we in north-west Auckland certainly regard that as quite critical and essential. I should actually note, for the sake of propriety, that any matters in here that would relate to my own electorate for which I’ve been advocating would not be handled by me particularly as the decision maker, notwithstanding that it would be, all things being equal, the Minister for Land Information. I would simply recuse myself, and, indeed, I have indicated that I won’t be a decision maker for reasons of, effectively, having a conflict of interest.

Just to return to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, particularly about the heritage of the Cambridge to Piarere project, I note that as listed it states that it’s to develop roading and associated infrastructure “from the southern end of the Waikato Expressway at Cambridge to the intersection of State Highway 1 and State Highway 29 at Piarere”, which, to the member’s point, I suppose some might regard as critical and some might not. But in any case, they are included for the reasons that I’ve set out previously.

As to whether the carbon costs or other sustainability considerations have been taken into account, the answer is: not in this legislation. But by virtue of having been included under those other regimes, it’s possible to have a view on the economic and also social and also environmental benefits and costs associated with those under those separate regimes.

In terms of Māori land owners, as I’ve stated, protected Māori land is defined as separate from the regime in the sense that such land owners will have recourse to the Environment Court still, for historical reasons—acknowledging that previous versions of the Public Works Act and previous administrations have used that as a mechanism for confiscation of land, and also acknowledging the complexities of some of the ways in which those lands are held. The definition of those is knowable from section 11 of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020. I won’t set them all out here today, unless members wish me to read them, but suffice to say there’s a pretty broad swathe of types of land that are included as protected Māori land and therefore outside this regime, except for the purpose of eligibility of premium payments.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for the awareness of the committee, Part 1 and Schedule 2 are two separate debates, but they are linked—acknowledging that the Minister and questioners so far have noticed that link, but just for other members as well. So if you are talking about Schedule 2, it has to be in relationship to how it relates to Part 1.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Tiamana. Just bringing the Minister to his Amendment Paper 350, the insertion in clause 5 of the new section (v). Thank you for that explanation about the project here being State Highway 1, Cambridge to Piarere. That’s helpful because we do find ourselves now in need of an explanation, then, about why this is a listed project. It is one of the projects which is set out in Schedule 2. So given that it is in Schedule 2, we then find ourselves scratching our heads about why you would need this new special provision in (v) to empower a project which has already been consented.

It seems here that what has happened is there will be projects which between August 2024 and December 2024, when it was “live”—as the Hon Rachel Brooking has described the legislation—you know, it was in force and then was repealed, and then there were provisions which, because of the transitional and savings provisions of the repeal, continued to be in force. Are there projects which in that period were consented under the old regime and are trying to be saved by this (v)?

The reason why we are asking is because we want to understand if there aren’t projects there, as I think the Minister has said, then what is the providence of this, and is it because there might have been projects that have been missed and we don’t know about which the Minister might then want to use these special provisions for? That’s relevant because, you know, to the average person on the street, we are considering a regime here where if you were the subject of a public works notice, say in my electorate around the Puhinui train station and you are a very aggrieved landowner there and are working with your local MP—hardworking local MP—lots of public meetings about this issue, then you are not eligible for this process. But if you are one of these people who is now newly eligible for this new regime, you are eligible for a somewhat more generous process.

So it does make a big difference to people. That’s why I’m asking. So if it’s not needed, then why is (v) there? And if it is needed, then there are some other projects that are not set out in Schedule 2, which we are talking about here. Or is it that it’s just unclear and this is a sort of belts and braces approach? That would be helpful if we could set that out.

I also have some questions about the Māori land issues here. It’s really important to Labour’s support for this bill that we have robust protections around Māori land. The committee was well served in hearing from the New Zealand Transport Agency that they did not require any land defined as protected Māori land for the first three projects. That was a helpful discussion to be able to have. It’s also helpfully set out in the regulatory impact statement that Crown Law was able to meet with Land Information New Zealand officials to work through any Māori land issues there and did not flag up, in the beginning, any issues for the implementation of this new provision that would affect Māori land.

But we just want to square off with the Minister whether anything in his new Amendment Paper would affect Māori land, whether it’s been through the same process with Crown Law, and also whether he considered any amendments working through the committee process. Because obviously a huge number of submitters to that process raised issues with fairness for Māori land owners. And for not only a deep mistrust in the State from a historical perspective, but now there are real concerns there that I think we will acknowledge in this House that owners of Māori land still have around State-sanctioned takings of Māori land. This is still something that affects whānau Māori, and it is not a historical injustice; this something that they deal with now.

So we want to be clear that if we are engaged in changing the way that Māori land will be taken for these projects, that in fact Māori land owners are in a better position. Because this is what we think on this side of the house, that these provisions will empower Māori land owners to be able to be involved with the Crown at the beginning of these projects and to have, sort of, an insight into what is developed there. And that is really important to our continued support.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for her questions. In relation to the Puhinui train station and other projects that have obtained consent but don’t apply for the regime, the member describes the general problem, of course, of when you introduce legislation that you’re confident will improve or be a more appropriate system, and the question is, then, always to what extent do those part-way through being processed under the previous regime get the benefit, or not, of the new regime. The answer is: those projects that are listed, including the one under the NBE—excuse the shorthand: the Natural and Built Environment Act—are included and those that are not, are not.

I suppose, at least in the case of the likes of Puhinui train station and its associated land acquisitions, with which the members are more familiar than me, they will be affected under the regime that existed already and was known to exist. So they’re not any worse off, in the sense that we are now improving the system which will improve lives, we think, for others in relation to other projects.

As for whether Māori land is affected by the Amendment Paper in my name, the short answer is no. But is the member correct to note that the historical injustice associated with the Public Works Act acquisitions are something to which we should take note and be mindful? The answer, of course, is yes. I acknowledge that point deliberately, upfront, because of course there is that historical uncertainty—or injustice, in fact.

In terms of the point that she’s made around—well, in fact, in the form of Amendment Paper 350, her proposal is that we qualify the ability for this regime to apply where a notice of requirement is lodged under the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 “only when that project is well supported by the community it will serve and affect”. And I think, as the member I’m sure will know, with her own legal background, that is not nearly certain enough to be able to determine whether a project would be eligible or not.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I’m sure that people who have tuned in on this debate tonight might not have any idea of what we’re talking about here, and, just to give it a bit of context, it is the process of taking land from people around the country for infrastructural projects. The list, as I’ve referred to before, is in new Schedule 2A and the process is really important. The Government has made some amendments that we’re supporting, and the Minister for Land Information may be able to answer some questions.

The first one is around the payment—the compensation, if you like, or call it what you like—and how the Government arrived at that figure. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee did have a look at this, there were submissions on it, and some adjustments were made on the basis of whether the landowner initiated the negotiation or whether it was the Crown, and that made, potentially, a difference between 5 percent and 15 percent for compensation payments. Without, at this stage—because I haven’t referred to Māori protected land, and that’s in Part 2 and I’ll ask some questions of the Minister there. But on this one, what was the rationale for that, because some people did have views that this might add to the value of land unnecessarily and that there might be some gaming by people who might land bank, and they were just making sure that the taxpayer wasn’t extorted or, I guess, held to ransom—and, indeed, this bill is about speeding up a process where there have been occasions where landowners have held out and have held up critical infrastructure developments. So it is around the intent just to oil the process, I guess, and the Government came out with 5 percent or 15 percent.

The other questions I have are around the time frames. Again, the objective of the bill was to speed things up alongside the fast-track process, and the Government’s proposal for this was that within 10 days, the officials or the people in the system would have to respond. The select committee had a look at that and said that, actually, it was a bit unreasonable, and so it extended that out to 20 days. I guess that at every step of the way, the question that I have of the Minister is whether he or the officials think that that has then undermined the fast-track objective of the bill. The select committee thought that it was reasonable to have that 20-day period, and then with an obligation, of course, to explain why that, and I think that maybe the Minister can take a call on that.

They’re reasonable questions. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee has had a thorough look at them and we’ve tried to make the adjustments to make it work, but does this undermine the objective of the initial proposal, which was to move this quite quickly? Maybe the Minister could give us an update on that.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much. I think those are very reasonable questions that enable us to tie out the idea that we seek balance in these matters. The member himself has acknowledged that. I think, as a matter of fairness to the taxpayer—or rather thinking about the opportunity cost for overpaying for land in a way that would mean that we can’t use such funds to fund other infrastructure or other land acquisition for the same project, for that matter. I think it’s a fair question, but the calculation of the Crown, through the Government of the day, but also as advised helpfully by various officials and users of the Public Works Act at the moment, is that we’ve struck a balance whereby we would provide incentive for people to agree at a relatively early stage of the process, thereby avoiding further cost for the Crown or the local government entity, for that matter, and of course for the landowner himself, herself, or themselves. In striking that balance, we’ve set the values of 5 percent and 15 percent for those purposes of incentive and recognition. We think that strikes an appropriate balance.

We would hope that people wouldn’t landbank in anticipation of enjoying greater rights under that regime. I suppose that is theoretically possible at least. They would have to be very far-sighted to do that, but, again, I acknowledge at least a technical possibility of that.

In terms of the balance around the time frames, I thought that the suggestion of the select committee to extend the period within which an objection can be made was a reasonable one—a helpful one, indeed. So the change from 10 working days to 20 working days is acknowledged and accepted.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair, thank you. I want to thank the Minister for his responses there. The Minister was in the House when I made a contribution on the second reading of this and indicated that we did have a couple of issues that we would look to have the Minister respond to in committee stage. Before we move to that, there are two areas that the Minister has commented on that I’d like to ask him for some clarity on.

The first is around his reference to projects that are in Schedule 2, and I don’t want to refer to them at this point in time, specifically, but he talked about if there was a project that he, as a local member, would have some form of advocacy around—that, effectively, he as Minister would be removing himself from that decision-making process. Now that, to be fair, is not something that the select committee thought about. There’s nothing in here that indicates that. I’m assuming that the good Minister wants to follow conflicts of interest and take an ethical approach. But my question to him is: what does that look like? Where does the line sit? Is this something that aligns itself with the Cabinet Manual, or can he just talk us through his response a little bit more specifically around that? Because when we look at Schedule 2, there are a number of largely transport-related pieces of critical infrastructure, and it is highly likely that any Minister for Land Information is likely to be captured in some way or another by one of those projects. That’s the first thing.

Second thing is, the Minister referred to the opportunity that exists for a person who has an issue with a process to effectively take up the judicial review process. Now, this is something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did hear about and did make some commentary on. The issue, of course, with any judicial proceedings, about judicial review is that they can be very, very expensive—very expensive—and the focus upon which one of those opportunities might arise is generally very narrow, rather than broad.

My question to the Minister—and that is a limiting factor, as part of this legislation: is he comfortable with that process? It’s really the only avenue for many people, particularly given that the right to an appeal to the Environment Court would no longer exist. I guess, is it because the nature of the scale of these projects is generally quite significant, and significantly large, and therefore the cost imposts that might follow from that is something that’s not to be considered, or the like?

The other issue I wanted to pick up on is just in Part 1—it’s clause 5, “New Part 2A inserted”. One of the changes, actually, the committee made was changing the title of the new Part 2A from compulsory “taking” to compulsory “acquisition”—I just think it sounds softer, really. But anyhow, when we look at new section 39AAH, there is a new subsection (1)(d) that has been inserted by the select committee. That’s about, basically, the fulsomeness of information; giving information about—well, once a decision has been taken, making sure that an applicant or a submitter is actually given the fullness of the information.

My question to the Minister is, there are a number of changes through this bill made by the select committee around time frames, reasons, how the notice is to be delivered—all of those sort of aspects. Is he comfortable with the sort of tone of those changes? Has he reflected on this sort of just general tenor of the bill as originally drafted, and has that prompted him to think about some other changes that might be necessary, or not, as a result?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you very much. Taking the member’s very thoughtful points in reverse order: I’m very comfortable with the tenor and, indeed, the substance of the suggestions made by the select committee. As I’ve acknowledged previously, I think those were really helpful and I’ve acknowledged particularly in terms of that time frame for notices of objection. That seems to me a worthwhile change that has been suggested and will be accepted in the sense that I’m not proposing that the committee of the whole House stage reverse that in the form of an Amendment Paper. I thank the select committee again for its diligent work in that space.

The work seemed to me thorough, such that we don’t need to consider further amendments in that similar vein. But, of course, over time it might be the case that suggestions are made in terms of the way that the regime operates in the real world that changes might suggest themselves either to this regime or to the Public Works Act more generally. In which case, I hope that the Government of the day and the relevant Minister at the time would take those very seriously indeed.

As for conflicts of interest—and the reason I raise that proactively is it seems to me some combination of the right thing to do from an ethical, legal, and constitutional point of view. Yes, the Cabinet Manual has things to say about Ministers making decisions in which they are conflicted. I suppose, to add a further limb, I would say from a political perspective, actually, it protects me as a local MP to be able to advocate strongly on behalf of my constituents and for the community in terms of those particular projects that affect the rural north of Auckland. This is not my opportunity to give an advertorial for how worthwhile those projects are, so I’ll resume my seat.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Mine’s quite a general question. Noting our exchange before—and the Minister noted my dislike of this Government’s Fast-track Approvals Act—I’m interested in the interaction between that terrible piece of law and this piece of law. I say that because, right at the start in the select committee’s report-back, it’s about speeding up the process for acquisition of private land for certain public works. And we know that those works are listed in new Schedule 2A of the bill that we’re not on yet. But then it says that the list of projects is based on the public works listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and the roads of national significance identified in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024.

So I can understand the sort of policy rationale then of deciding what’s critical infrastructure, we’ll look at what’s already in these different documents and decide from there what we’re going to put on our list and call critical infrastructure. But I’m wondering if there’s more to it than that. If the bill is actually referring specifically to that Fast-track Approvals Act and if there could be more projects—and I’m cautious; I don’t want to be talking about Schedule 2 when we’re not there yet—but just how that critical infrastructure is defined in relation to fast track. Is it just a general policy position or is it legislated for somewhere in the bill that I haven’t come across yet that says that critical infrastructure has to be—I can’t see it in the definition—something that’s listed in the Fast-track Approvals Act or the roads of national significance or the Government policy statement? Is there a link to that definition somewhere or is it just that—was the problem: “Oh, we’re going to have these bits of infrastructure come through and we all know that a real block to a big piece of infrastructure can be the taking of that land, so that’s why you want to speed things up.”? Or is there actually a closer link to that one piece of legislation and other Government plans?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for her further question. She describes very well the way that we’ve established the eligibility for critical infrastructure to be so, and then she asks if there’s anything more to that: there isn’t. Thank you for the question, however.

I suppose I should make a general point which is that critical infrastructure, I suppose, could be considered a tautology. Infrastructure, by its nature, is important, even critical. Some infrastructure might be considered more critical than others in an Orwellian sense, so where one draws the line—reasonable minds can differ as to where it should be drawn, but it’s drawn in the way that is described, I think, pretty clearly in the bill, including, particularly, its schedule.

To return to a point on which I was remiss in not having addressed from our colleague and friend Mr Tangi Utikere, he rightly points out that judicial review processes, like all litigation processes, are expensive. But I would make the obvious point that that also applies, equally, if not more so, to Environment Court processes, which is part of the expense and costs that we’re seeking to avoid with this amended method of raising an objection under this legislation.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this legislation. But before I begin my substantive questioning to the Minister, I would like the House to indulge me when I wish all the members here a happy Buwan ng Wika—that’s the National Language Month for the Philippines. I’ve just returned from an excellent event that was sponsored by MP Paulo Garcia, and that was hosted by the Dames of Rizal and—what was that other group, Paulo? The Hiyas group. It was a great event. Fantastic. Thank you for hosting it, Paulo.

I’ll turn now to the substance of my contribution, which is the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Very decent of you, Mr Hernandez—very decent.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chair, and members across the Chamber. My question is around the clause 25A(4)(a)—that’s my first question—and it’s around whether the Minister has a definition of “reasonable”. So what is the threshold in which a Minister or the local authority might consider when a request might be reasonable? Is there established case law around this? Is there a definition around it? Are there similar precedents that the Minister can draw upon to illuminate what the definition for “reasonable” might be?

I have some questions—skipping ahead—around clause 39AAK, under “Compensation payable under this Part”, around (3)(a) and (b); (4)(a), (b), (c)—around the sort of compensation thresholds. I’m just wondering where those figures were derived from. I guess under (3)(a), it was “equal 5 percent of the total land value; or (b) $92,000 if 5 percent of the total land value is equal to or more than $92,000”. Under (4) it’s “(a) equal 15 percent of the total land value; or (b) be $5,000 if the 15 percent of the total land value is equal to or less than $5,000; or (c) be $150,000 if 15 percent of the total land value is equal to or more than $150,000”.

What are these thresholds derived from? Is it that from the parent legislation, or is that something that arose as a result of the consultation? Thank you for the opportunity to wish the members a happy National Language Month, and I’m looking forward to my answers.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Heamana. To the Minister for Land Information, I want to bring his attention to page 4 of the original bill—new section 39AAD, inserted by clause 5, which is the exemption for protected Māori land in Part 1. I think it would be helpful at this point if we were able to also reference some of the projects in Schedule 2 as they apply to that section. I need to ask him about how there are parts that are protected Māori land within the meaning of the Public Works Act (PWA), but there are also other sorts of land that have Māori rights and interests associated with them that are exempt from the PWA that are still within scope for the projects that are listed in Schedule 2A, and I’d like him to step us through those.

One is the marine and coastal area. I’d like to give him an example here. In the Airport to Botany Bus Rapid Transit, there is a bridge between the South Auckland airport connection and the Auckland Airport that is the subject of litigation over the years, a number of negotiations between Auckland Airport and iwi there with customary title in that area. That is not a usual piece of land that could be acquired for public works. Orrs Road is the end of the project in Schedule 2A, so it actually excludes that bridge, but there is Māori land in that area. It’s a really significant area. Ihumātao is there. It is the stonefields that have been preserved for a long time because of the way that the airport green belt works and because of the significant tapu areas in that region.

So there will be a lot of people who are interested and concerned about how we treat those significant land areas under this part. So they are exempt from this, but it seems like they are included in Schedule 2A, so I want him to step us through how those pieces of land will be treated.

It would also help when we’re thinking about how the Amendment Papers then apply, if that Crown Law advice that has been provided to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) around whether the original bill impacted on Māori land rights—Crown Law concluded that it did not. It did not have significant implications for Te Tiriti o Waitangi for LINZ. Could he just give us an assurance that there aren’t other pieces of land which are impacted by any of the amendments where Crown Law has raised concerns, or have they been able to raise concerns? Have we been through that process, which was helpful in the regulatory impact statement in the beginning?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll try and do justice to the seriousness of the subject that underpins the questions and the comments made by the member.

I suppose just to take a step back briefly, it’s unusual now, and I’ll quantify that in a moment, for Māori freehold land to be acquired under the Public Works Act. So I understand that where acquisition of whenua Māori is required, current practice is for the Crown, you know, through its agencies, to acquire that by agreement with landowners wherever possible, and use compulsory acquisition only as the last resort, such that Māori freehold land has not been compulsorily acquired in any case in the last 10 years. I know that Land Information New Zealand’s practices are quite explicit about that. So there is a sound basis as well as, you know, a positive intent in that regard.

In terms of specific projects, I don’t wish to get myself into trouble by speaking directly to any that the member has raised, although I know, you know, she rightly takes an interest in those. But I would say, perhaps on a non-exhaustive basis, if I can give a few examples of the type of land that’s explicitly excluded from the critical infrastructure regime that we’re legislating to amend, the Public Works Act, tonight. But also acknowledge the point she’s made with a couple of examples of land acquisitions that are not available under the Public Works Act in general.

So the first category, that which is not included as part of the critical infrastructure regime as defined in section 11 of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020: Māori freehold land, Māori reserves, general land owned by Māori that was previously Māori freehold land, and land held by a post-settlement governance entity and acquired under a Treaty settlement.

Moving now to a couple of examples where other legislation means that the Māori land in question isn’t subject to the Public Works Act regime in the first instance, these include Māori reservations and Māori customary land.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to go to page 19 of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee report-back, and that is what will be new section 39AAN, “Adjustment to critical infrastructure project descriptions”. What it looks like this new section will do is enable the schedule, that’s not in this part but we will keep half-referring to because it’s critical, obviously. So that schedule can be amended by an Order in Council, but there are some criteria in new subsection (2) that limit the scope of that amendment. So it’s got to be a small amendment—I don’t have questions on the wording of that at the moment, but what I’m interested in is new subsection (3), and that says, “To avoid doubt, no new items may be inserted into [this critical] Schedule … by an order made under this section.”

So my question is if there is some other clause that I haven’t found in the bill yet that enables the change of that schedule, Schedule 2A, the critical infrastructure list, or is it just that it’s in the primary legislation so any change to the schedule that’s not one of these minor ones amending the project description or amending the location description—that anything else has to be through amendments in primary legislation, or is there a mechanism somewhere to do it by regulation to amend the schedule?

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think my question follows on from my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question because it is coming back to the definition of “critical infrastructure project”, which the Minister for Land Information has argued is possibly a tautology in that every bit of infrastructure has some use value. But having use value is different from being critical. And I know that we’re still on Part 1, however the definition that we go to is in new Schedule 2A in Schedule 2, and the challenge I have here is that when I look at what’s in Schedule 2A, that sort of looks like fast-track projects. So critical infrastructure—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Can’t see any coalmines in it, though.

SCOTT WILLIS: —yeah—could well be called something else, and I’m interested in what else might go in there, because it’s certainly true that the Minister is in a Government that has three parts to it. Certainly, parts of the Government are very keen on fossil fuel infrastructure and have argued that we need more fossil fuels, and they’ve also argued that that’s critical.

So in that sense, it relates to the question I was asking earlier about the carbon cost of infrastructure build. Is it likely that once this bill has passed, we might see in the definition that “critical infrastructure” could be defined as oil and gas pipelines, or it could be defined as fossil fuel infrastructure, which will increase our carbon emissions. Is that something that we’re opening the door to through this legislation, because I’m not sure I see that that’s closed off here, and I think it’s very, very clear that what we’re calling critical infrastructure projects at the moment is simply another way of saying “fast-track projects”. So maybe the title is completely wrong, and maybe it’s the “Public Works (Fast Track) Amendment Bill”, in that sense—which I’m sure we’ll come back to.

But my question is really coming back to an earlier question, in part, but also in relation to what loopholes or what doorways are open to the more carbon-intensive and the more polluting projects that could be covered by this term “critical infrastructure projects”. So if the Minister could respond, I’d really appreciate that. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to assure both members who have recently contributed that there is no method of further inclusion or amendment other than that described by Ms Brooking.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ll just go to the removal of the ability for landowners to go to the Environment Court. That is probably at the heart of the changes that have been made here. That was an assumption always in place, that landowners, having received notice of the land to be taken under the Public Works Act, would then have the right to go to the Environment Court.

So the question of the Minister for Land Information is: did the Government consider, perhaps, increasing the resources of the Environment Court and actually fast tracking the Environment Court process? That might have been a better alternative than what we’re doing here. So I don’t know what the relative resourcing requirements would have been, but this piece of legislation puts in place some reasonably substantive compensation payments that are potentially paid to landowners. If you had boosted, collectively, over the next 10 years, that amount of compensation into the Environment Court and sped up the process with some of the time limits in this piece of legislation, maybe we would have ended up with a higher-trust, more consistent approach. Maybe the Minister can just answer that question.

As I say, the natural justice issues there are critical, and whatever the Minister, I guess, upholds in this piece of legislation will be tested under the Resource Management Act and the reforms that we hear are coming.

There are some safeguards for private property retained from the Public Works Act into this piece of legislation, but all decisions are subject to judicial reviews. That’s why, I guess, I, thankfully, have some very focused legal minds here, on my side of this debate, who are scrutinising this, because it will indeed be through judicial review that we’ll end up with, I guess, some jurisprudence and some precedence that will give us a guideline, because this legislation will be reviewed after three years, it’s written in here, that’s a safeguard, and, hopefully, it will have moved down a positive path.

So maybe just the question of the Minister as to whether the resourcing issues have been considered and whether, actually, an enhanced Environment Court process would have been better than what we’ve ended up with, which, effectively, puts any review in the hands of the Minister, who has an interest in driving these projects forward. I’m not saying—and he’s pointed out himself that conflict of interest issues will be addressed and acknowledged, but, none the less, a Government in charge, or Minister as part of Cabinet, will be inclined to drive these things forward, in spite of a review that may have been sought from a landowner, that may be justified and could very well be worthy of a reverse decision. But maybe the Minister can take a call.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. The member the Hon Damien O’Connor says that I may have interest as a member of the Cabinet; I thank him for the promotion. I’m also not a member of the judiciary—whether being a member of the judiciary would represent a promotion or a demotion, we can all have a view.

But the issues of our court system, the Government’s taking measures, in other ways, to address. The judiciary might wish to join them in that endeavour, but it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to speculate further on that. Resourcing issues are, therefore, outside of my scope constitutionally but also in terms of this debate. But suffice to say that if the Environment Court and other processes were not so slow and uncertain, then it might be that we don’t feel the need for changes to the legislation to ensure a faster and fairer regime. Nevertheless, that’s the situation that confronts us, and in particular instances—that I’m not going to mention in the House now, precisely because they remain in front of New Zealand courts of law—it’s clearly the case that we need a much more expeditious, as well as fair, process for determining these matters and being able to move on as landowners and as communities requiring the benefit of the infrastructure.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Look, I’m detecting an eagerness to get on to some of the issues in Part 2 here; however, the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is my first call in this part, and while the Minister, I think, has been really excellent in addressing the many questions that my colleagues have raised, and many of them have raised questions that I, myself, wanted to raise, I do have a couple of additional questions.

I did want to take this opportunity to put on the record the Green Party’s concerns, overall, with the process—the fact that the process was sped-up during the select committee, that the select committee was asked to report back faster, so there was a shortened time for consideration at the select committee, and that’s one reason I think we should take a little more time in here. Even though there wasn’t a later report-back date, we were asked to have the submissions open for just a short period of time and report back faster. So that was one of the reasons why the Greens didn’t feel we could change our vote to support.

Of course, the other major substantive reason is because, if there were to be projects that were taking land for public good, for public infrastructure that’s critically important, it would have to be absolutely clear that those projects were taking us to net zero emissions or, better yet, gross zero emissions. Because there’s an urgent, urgent need to respond to climate change, and it doesn’t make sense for the Government to be speeding up projects for which we have no sense that they’re actually going to reduce carbon emissions. They might actually make it worse.

I’ll speak to the specifics of the projects. I do have some amendments coming to Part 2. But in Part 1, I wanted to come back to clause 39AAD, “Exception for protected Māori land”. Now, I take on board the comments that the Minister has made that it’s been over a decade since protected Māori land has been compulsorily acquired; however, during the submissions at the select committee, we heard a submission from Patricia Grace, who was successful in challenging NZTA taking her land for the Kāpiti Expressway in 2013-14. Her contention was that had this bill been in place, she would not have been able to take it to the Environment Court. I believe that’s because her land would not have met the definition of protected Māori land, at that point. So I just wanted to seek that clarity from the Minister, if that had been considered or if the definition of “protected Māori land” actually would apply to ancestral lands like that. It is quite a tight, narrow definition.

We’re concerned, personally, that clause 39AAD doesn’t provide enough protection for Māori land that isn’t already in the definition of “protected Māori land” of a reserve. A reserve has subsequently been made on that land, but her contention was that had this bill been in place, and had that project been in Schedule 2, that she would not have been able to protest the Government taking it, and she would not have been successful in securing that land in a reserve.

I had another question to the Minister, which, of course, because of the time of the night, I’ve just lost my slight train of thought—sorry about that. I think, ultimately, the submissions that we will make—the proposed Amendment Papers we’ll put forward—primarily apply to Part 2. But I do hope that the Minister can make some comment on protected Māori land and, in addition, to the concerns raised by my colleague Arena Williams.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member Julie Anne Genter for her questions. I’m happy to make comment and, indeed, repeat my comment regarding protected Māori land to the extent that it does include, as I stated earlier, Māori reserves. Also, I’ve pointed out that Māori reservations are prohibited, as in excluded from the Public Works Act regime in the first place, such that they don’t then become a relevant question as to inclusion or not within the critical infrastructure regime.

I appreciate that reserves and reservations are different, but they’re temptingly close in terms of how they’re written at least, so I felt moved to provide one example of each of those types. I’ve previously explained different bases on which protected Māori land—or Māori land in general that might be said to be protected in that other, more broad sense of the phrase—won’t be subject to this regime.

I’m not familiar with the case of Ms Grace to be able to comment on that, and I’d probably be foolish to do so, not least of all because it’s a hypothetical matter in the past, obviously deeply important to her and perhaps others. I respect that, of course, but I would point out that the fact of a property being included within the scope of this regime doesn’t mean that a compulsory acquisition would necessarily be allowed anyway. Admittedly, it would be for the decision maker, be it the Minister or the local government entity, as the case may be, to make that decision. But I reiterate that that decision would have to be reasonable, otherwise the recourse to the court would still be available—albeit under judicial review—under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court as compared with the Environment Court, as currently is the case.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Brooking—but I’m looking for some pretty new material.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is just a quick call, and, again, quite a high-level one. I’m going back to when this part applies, at page 4 of the bill as reported back from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and that is new section 39AAC in clause 5, “When this Part applies”, and that is that it’s either when that critical infrastructure project is “a Government work”, at subsection (1), or, at subsection (2), it’s “a local work”. Those terms “local work” and “Government work” are both defined in the Public Works Act and have been for some time, and so I just wanted to clarify with the Minister for Land Information that even if something is listed in a schedule that we’re not talking about yet as being critical infrastructure—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): But we’ll get there, won’t we, Ms Brooking?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —I know; I do want to get there, I promise—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I can feel an eagerness to be there.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —it’s also got to be a Government work or a local work. So my question is whether it is possible to have something defined as critical infrastructure that isn’t a Government work or a local piece of work, as we all know—all of us have worked with the Public Works Act for years and years, and with those definitions. So is this an additional test at new section 39AAC that you have to have both listed in the schedule, and a Government work or a local work? So, whatever the project is, it has to be both, and is it that there’s no way—and this is a really important point—that projects that are on that fast-track list that are private projects, which are going to advantage private people and are not to do with public infrastructure, can ever be part of the process that we’re debating today?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s possibly helpful to note for the record that it’s only public works in that sense or Government work, to use the phrase that the member has used, that would qualify for this regime. So not private or non-Government works, therefore.

In terms of the point made by the Hon Julie Anne Genter, which I was remiss in not acknowledging before, I do want to thank and acknowledge the select committee for moving quickly in terms of its consideration. I do point out, for the sake of balance and fullness, that the three-year review mechanism that we’ve included, I think will be helpful in ensuring that we will have a good sense of how the regime performs in the real world, as well as the scrutiny that we’ve applied to it so far tonight, and, no doubt, through the rest of the legislative process.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I acknowledge the thanks there from the Minister about the select committee reporting back. It reported back much earlier than it was actually required to under the instruction of the House.

Andy Foster: It was very good.

TANGI UTIKERE: Yes, it was very good, Mr Foster. I see Mr Foster’s in the Chamber—the chair of the select committee. I’m sure he will attest to some of the thinking that the committee turned its mind to, particularly around trying to, I think, insert I guess what could be described as some failsafe provisions, particularly around notification. I’m talking about for submitters, applicants, and the like.

One of those is actually in what is a completely new section that’s been inserted on recommendation of the select committee, which is new section 25A, inserted by clause 5, inserting new Part 2A—this is about the time frame, but, in particular, a new process around extending time frames. Believe it or not, the select committee actually spent a little bit of time thinking about things like, well, what does it mean to have a decision in writing? What does writing mean? Does it need to be via post? Does it need to be via email?—all of those sorts of things. A lot of what is proposed in new section 25A is in that sort of vein and meant to, I think, fall in favour of the person who is either objecting or submitting, but also that the Minister or the local council would be required to, effectively, give reasons and also have a bit of a time frame as well.

I want to, effectively, sort of compare that with what is something not touched yet. That is the new section 39AAO, inserted by clause 5, inserting new Part 2A. This is under the heading of “Other matters”, towards the end of Part 1. The select committee had suggested a change to insert an entire new way in which notice may actually be served or given. This goes back to the point around trying to ensure that it was user friendly and I think trying to, actually, Minister, strike that balance that you referred to around some element of haste but also protecting the rights of folk to get the information that they need. So my question for the Minister: is he comfortable with what I’ve termed failsafe provisions in the legislation that’s been added by the select committee?

The other is just over the page here, and it relates to subsections (2) and (3) of new section 39AAP, inserted by clause 5, inserting new Part 2A. This is about the requirement to undertake a review that the Minister has referred to and that it needs to be three years after the date of this part’s commencement. One of the interesting things is that we’re starting to see this, I guess, too, as kind of like a catch-all. Who’s going to actually be part of this review process? We haven’t heard from the Minister around that yet. The Minister, there is a requirement that he, she, or they may be required to sort of consult with people that they would consider as appropriate. Well, who are those individuals? Would it be depending on a huge number of judicial review opportunities that may have been exercised or not? Are we talking about the specific projects that have actually either been partially completed or fully completed—the projects that are listed Schedule 2—or not? I think it would be quite helpful. It’s great that there is a review clause in here, but is the Minister comfortable that the catch-all is just going to sit there, or how would that kind of be described in his own thinking?

Likewise, the final point is we’ve been very careful as a committee to think about the number of days or working days and all those sorts of things. Yet, in subsection (3), one thing we didn’t actually provide a recommendation on is the requirement as to when that report of the review needs to be presented to the House. I mean, it says there “as soon as practicable” after completion. Now, a lot of the other “as soon as practicable” in previous sections kind of are driven by other projects and other sort of systems at play, but this may not. I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts, in particular around what might drive those two components of subsections (2) and (3).

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, sir, and thank you to the member for his further thoughtful questions.

I am comfortable that the mechanics of notices and requests being in writing in the way that is specified and helpfully laid out now by the select committee are appropriate, and I thank the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work, including the chair, Mr Andy Foster.

In terms of the review, I think it’s impossible to know, in three years from now when that review takes place, what people might be appropriate to conduct it. I think it would depend on the experience of the operation and the regime in the meantime. Obviously, I won’t suggest particular names, although I take the opportunity to place on record, again, my thanks for the panel that reviewed the existing legislation and made very thoughtful suggestions, and of course, the good folk at Land Information New Zealand and others who advised on what such a regime might look like.

In terms of the time period within which the then Minister may be required to report back, I think I’d be creating a rod for my own back or perhaps someone else’s back if I were to be more specific than to use the framing there. But it would be my hope and expectation that the Minister at that time would do so with an appropriate sense of haste—there’s that word again—given the importance and the public policy considerations inherent in ensuring we’ve got a fast and fair regime.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Noting that Mr Utikere finished on the very last clause of the part, I’ll take a closure motion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 350, amending new section 39AAH(1AA)(a)(v) to provide that notice of intention to take land must not be given unless a project is well supported by the community, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 350 be agreed to

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Related and consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we’ll come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 6 to 11, “Related and consequential amendments”, and Schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Mr Chairman, thank you. Moving on to Part 2, as I said earlier on, I’ll speak about protected Māori land. It was and still is a critical part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s consideration. This part relates to compensation in particular, and I guess one of the issues for the protected Māori land—it’s listed here, and I think it is important to reassure those owners of Māori land that they have not been forgotten. This is not a roll-through or roll-over of their rights, and, certainly, the Labour Party in Opposition fought strongly to ensure that was the case. Māori freehold land; Māori reserves; general land owned by Māori that was previously Māori freehold land; post-settlement governance entity land; iwi or hapū, if land was transferred to return to mana whenua; Māori reservations; Māori customary land—it’s all pretty much covered.

On the issue of compensation, maybe the Minister for Land Information can reassure Māori land owners, because sometimes the valuation of that land is difficult, while there are in Part 2, of course, specifications for the amount of compensation that should be paid under subsection (2)(c), “(a) equal 15% of the total land value of the land”. Maybe the Minister can assure Māori landowners that that would be of full market value even though the land may not be available for sale because of its status. That is important.

Working through fair compensation—“(b) be $5,000 if 15% of the total land value is equal to or less than $5,000; … (c) be $150,000 if 15% of the total land value is equal to or more than $150,000.”—there could be situations, particularly in urban environments where we have Māori-owned land, where the compensation may be worth more than $150,000 if it’s 15 percent of the commercial value. I just need reassurance. I know the select committee did its very best to look at that and give reassurance, but I guess, from the Minister on behalf of the Crown, a reassurance to Māori land owners that they will be getting a fair deal and not squeezed, because there is a history of that, and I don’t think anyone, certainly not the select committee, wanted to perpetrate that again on Māori land owners. It’s an opportunity, and the Minister can talk—these are, for the most part, in Part 2, issues in or around the compensation. Maybe that is the critical one that I think there needs to be a reassurance from the Crown on.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. Having provided that same assurance several times already this evening, I’m happy to provide it again, respecting that the question was, no doubt, asked in good faith. More particularly, protected Māori land, as defined under the Public Works Act, cannot be acquired under the critical infrastructure process. It is exactly that change that we are changing to the regime tonight. So protected Māori land, as defined and as we’ve set out a couple of times already this evening, cannot be acquired under the critical infrastructure regime; however, the owners of protected Māori land, on the other hand, will be eligible for premium payments, if their land is acquired for critical infrastructure projects, using the standard process. In that sense, they get the best of both worlds. They get the ability to retain that right of recourse to the Environment Court, but also those higher payments that are available to those owners of land that is not protected Māori land.

Again, respecting and acknowledging and, indeed, having mentioned upfront the historical injustices associated with the Crown’s use of the Public Works Act to deprive owners of Māori land of their rightful property, and not wishing to perpetuate that, and, in fact, improving on the position of Māori land holders, not only relative to where they are now, such that they will get the premium payment, but also improving their position relative to owners of land that is not protected Māori land, in the sense that we are allowing to remain in place that recourse in the Environment Court.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. That is a very helpful answer from the Minister for Land Information and it helps me to clarify my questions. I have two for him to begin with, in this Part 2, about Māori land rights. Before I bring him into the detail of Schedule 2, the first is a general question about how the additional compensation provisions at new section 72F will work for Treaty settlement land, which is included, and those rights that arise under deeds between the Crown and iwi for compensation but are not necessarily crystallised at the time. In this schedule of projects, there are some of those. To give him an example, the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act was a 2014 piece of legislation that recognised the collective redress system for the 19 iwi with interests in the Tāmaki-makau-rau area. This was after, essentially, a second go at that from the Government in that period, where rights had been recognised in a staged way but not all at the same time. To recognise that there were a number of iwi with overlapping interests in the area, there was designed, essentially, a carousel of commercial property opportunities in a way that the three groupings of collectives under that Act would share those commercial opportunities.

There are properties all around Auckland where iwi share an interest, and if the Crown ever, say, sells or divests itself of that land, they are entitled to that but not through an ordinary right of first refusal. Those rights are not that any given iwi has been granted a right of first refusal, so that’s not something that appears, say, on the title of that land, but it is something that exists where Government agencies with that land know that they are subject to that 2014 Act and so must deal with the carousel, which is a limited partnership called the Whenua Haumi Roroa o Tāmaki Makaurau Limited Partnership. I raise this point because, where this new mandatory payments provision might apply, there are some projects here which that might apply to, and probably do apply to. How will these new provisions for compensation interact with rights which haven’t crystallised and aren’t on the title of the land, but where iwi might reasonably expect themselves to have rights that are accrued under the 2014 Act which they can realise? “How will those rights be compensated?” is the general question.

I think helpfully—I hope helpfully—I’ll give them an example that we can talk about. It’s the Carrington Residential Development site. I am genuinely interested in the Minister’s explanation of this. It’s not a road. The committee helpfully heard from the New Zealand Transport Agency on its expectations of how these projects will work, but obviously not builders of a large residential project at Carrington. The 139 Carrington Road site is about 40 hectares of land on what was Unitec land. That will be an amazing housing development for Auckland, but it already has iwi with interests in it who are building on it. We have this provision here where it’s a scheduled project where there are special powers to compensate Māori land owners. They are actively engaged with the Government to in fact build this critical infrastructure, so why is it there? And is it possible that these Māori land owners who are actively engaged in the building of what is considered critical infrastructure here are now subject to requirement provisions that are different? In what situation would the Minister be able to exercise those? I don’t think it’s his intention to exercise those, but why, then, is it included?

It’s not a road, and that is relevant because we are creating some provisions here where the New Zealand Transport Agency, for the public good and for no profit whatsoever, would be acquiring land from private owners to build what is only valuable in a public sense. But Carrington is included here, where there are Māori land ownership rights that do accrue some private benefit, so we want some clarity on how that will work.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the member for her question. Thanks to those who are more knowledgeable in the matter than I am who have provided some information, which is that the Carrington residential development—with which many Aucklanders are familiar, even if I don’t know the history and, indeed, the future intentions perhaps as well as that member, and certainly Mr Tama Potaka—at the former Unitec campus in Mt Albert has been facilitated by the Crown through the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, as it’s popularly known. It’s a long-term project being carried out over multiple stages, and HUD has indicated that there may be a need for new infrastructure in the future, presumably to support that development.

With the detailed design stages not having yet been completed, it’s possible that there will be public works required that qualify—and, indeed, are necessary and desirable—under this regime that would be included. So for that reason, it’s been included. More specifically than that, I don’t wish to comment on particular other projects that the member’s aware of historically, which she’s referred to. I will say in general terms, though, that as I’ve said previously, land held by a post-settlement governance entity and acquired under a Treaty settlement is not captured by this critical infrastructure element of the legislation, precisely because it’s considered protected Māori land under other legislation—so too, land held by an iwi or hapū, if that land was transferred to return to mana whenua. In a general ballpark, as well, I’ll add that areas with protected customary rights are also not included for the amended process as to critical infrastructure. But again, I am just emphasising that such owners of protected Māori land would, nevertheless, be eligible for premium payments.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got one question relating to that answer and exchange that’s just been had, then a separate question.

On that Carrington housing development, I have two questions around that. One is that I think what the Minister was referring to was roads and other things that we would normally think of as infrastructure. Of course, housing is very important as well, and many people talk about it in a very valid way as infrastructure, but my recollection is—and, sorry, I haven’t looked at this for some time—that housing generally isn’t something that the Public Works Act applies to. I may be wrong, so please do correct me if I am. I’d just be interested in that point. There are two questions in that: could there ever be a housing project listed as a critical infrastructure project? Would it meet that local work or Government work test in the main part of the Public Works Act? Either way, is he just talking about Carrington in terms of roads and not the houses but the other bits? That’s one line of questions.

My next question is in relation to the amendments to the Resource Management Act. New clause 10A of the bill amends section 185. This is an interesting section, and I’m sure everyone will be really interested to hear that this was the section that I first made legal submissions to the High Court on—section 185—some decades ago. Section 185 is a really interesting section—I would say that, wouldn’t I? I’ll tell you why it’s interesting, and that is because when land is required and somebody like a road authority says, “We’re going to put a notice of requirement on this land, and one day in the future, we might build a road on it, and we and we might go through with the designation.”, of course, that can be seen as a blight on someone’s private property, and it may be that it never goes ahead. There’ll be lapse periods in terms of the time frames for those requirements and designations, but it may be that they don’t go ahead.

The property owner can say, “Look, this is a real pain having these lines drawn over my property, and it’s stopping me from being able to capitalise on my property. So what I want is I want my land to be taken, and I’m going to make you take that land.” What appears in this amendment is to add this critical infrastructure project into the ability for the landowner to make it be taken from them, and, of course, when it’s made to be taken, they get compensated for it. My question is: why is that amendment needed for critical infrastructure if the whole point of this bill that we’re looking at is to really speed it up? Isn’t it the idea that these projects that are specifically listed in the Schedule that we are now allowed to talk about in Part 2 should happen quickly? I was wondering if he wanted to comment on that.

Then my other question regarding section 185 is just that new subsection (8)(a) refers to section 2 of the Public Works Act. We’ve seen in Part 1 that that’s amended to relate to the—it links to section 2 of the Public Works Act. The general interpretation section specifically links to the new interpretation that’s in this bill and in relation to which the requiring authority may use Part 2A of that Act to acquire the owner’s land. I presume that the link that I was talking about before in Part 1 was when this part applies and that it’s got to relate to either the Government work or the local work and can’t just be a critical infrastructure project. Is that link seen in new subsection (8)(b) there, or is it actually something else?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. If I was slower on my feet, that might have been the end of the part! But I will answer at least the first part of the question because that’s as far as I can get in terms of providing what I expect, and hope, will be a reasonable answer.

In relation to Carrington specifically, but also more generally, I understand that the principle at play is that if works are carried out by the State, then they’re capable of being defined as “public works”. That means that housing is potentially within the remit, along with pipes and utilities and, indeed, roads, as the member’s mentioned—categories of works that we might traditionally consider as infrastructure.

More particularly, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, as previously mentioned, can use the Public Works Act through the Housing Act to require land for State housing permits—section 5 of that Act, as I understand. I’ll pause in case the member’s got any interjection she wants to make.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Just a little question: can local government do houses as well, or is it just Government housing through the Act that you just referred to?

Hon CHRIS PENK: In the case of local government, it might be something that I will be able to clarify for the member, and, if not on the spot, then perhaps at a future time.

The other questions asked by the member, I’m not in a position to answer definitively at this point, either.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to round off these questions about the Carrington residential development. That is really helpful from the Minister. The reason I am asking this question is because we acknowledge—everyone does, in this House, I think—the history of Māori land takings. Part of that troubled history is the giving by iwi of land for a specific development of a purpose, for instance, a church or a school, and then that land not being used for a school or a church and it, in fact, being used for something else. That is where a lot of this historic mistrust really—you know, these are the hardest cases, where that has happened for Māori, in good faith, giving to the Crown and then not being returned that. So I want to ask about the Carrington residential development quite specifically. I think we are talking about some roads, although the Crown housing programme is a reason for public works taking.

In this situation, this was land that fit into the Crown housing programme, but because of accommodations that were made between HUD, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and these iwi that would have otherwise had rights and interests to build houses that were included in that process from the very beginning—that’s an important part of Government proactively working with Māori to recognise their rights, even when they have not crystallised legally. Now we have a situation where we have land owners who are iwi, who are engaged in the project of building the houses that we need. These are critical infrastructure projects.

Could we now be in a situation where these provisions are used to, again, remove that land that these iwi have entered into, in good faith, to build these houses? You would recognise that in a sort of development like this, there will need to be roads, there will need to be public facilities; those have all well and truly been agreed. But is there now a way for the Minister to use these provisions for land which is current being developed by these iwi in this project, because it is schedulised here. If that’s not the intention, why is it schedulised like this? Help us to understand how the rights and interests of Māori, who are land owners here, who are land owners because of rights that have arisen from a Treaty settlement, in 2014, will be affected by this.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you. To answer as helpfully as I can, the opening comment that I made when we commenced this committee of the whole House stage acknowledged that there are thorny issues around disposals of land under the Public Works Act. It was outside the scope of the review that we asked the panel to undertake, and it’s outside the scope of this legislation, so we don’t make any changes in that regard. But I do want to acknowledge for the sake of the public record that it’s an area of further reform that a future Government might consider, whether in relation to the critical infrastructure regime or more generally regarding the Public Works Act.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve just lodged eight amendments. They’ve been tabled, and they’re specifically amendments to Schedule 2. I wanted to focus my contribution on those projects, but more broadly, how the projects have come to be included in “Critical infrastructure projects”, Schedule 2A, on page 29.

In the broad comments that the Minister made in relation to my colleague Scott Willis’ question about the impact on carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, the Minister said that, in this regime, these projects haven’t been subjected to that kind of test or consideration or modelling, but that they would have been included in fast-track or the Government Policy Statement on land transport—that, in those other processes, they would have been considered. However, that is not the case when it comes to the Government Policy Statement on transport. A number of highways have simply been stipulated because the National Party campaigned on them. They’ve been subject to no analysis, as far as I’m aware, but we all know that they’re going to involve a lot of carbon emissions to build, and they’re certainly not going to reduce carbon emissions.

We have a dire need to reduce transport emissions in this country. They’re about 40 percent of our carbon emissions. Our transport system is almost entirely dependent on private cars and trucks, and until we start investing in the alternatives to roads, we won’t have any choice but to use cars and trucks. For most New Zealanders, we’re nowhere near having a high penetration of low-emissions vehicles. It’s going to cost a fortune for us to replace the current vehicle fleet with low-emissions vehicles. I just put it to the Minister that there is actually no way that the highways listed in Schedule 2 have been the focus of any sort of analysis about whether they’re going to help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I would say we have very good reason to believe that they won’t.

A further point that I would make to the Minister—and the reason why I have tabled these amendments—is that, if we’re going to acquire land for public purposes and we’re going to take away people’s land and we’re making this faster and harder for people to object to, it really needs to meet the test of being for the public good. The Government has introduced a new process that the Infrastructure Commission is going through, called the Infrastructure Priorities Programme. Now, I admit that’s in its early days, but I would suggest that if we were going to be using this sort of process for critical infrastructure, that should be infrastructure that has been subject to the Infrastructure Priorities Programme, contains analysis, and has received the tick of approval. The Government just recently announced its national infrastructure plan. That’s in a draft format, but the Infrastructure Commission makes it very clear in their draft plan that we haven’t been very good at choosing which projects to build. If we’re rushing ahead to try and acquire land quickly and we’re acquiring land compulsorily, I think people would want those projects to be genuinely contributing to the betterment of the country, and that does mean that they’re good projects, not just projects that some party has campaigned on once.

One of the things I’m most confused about is the East-West link being included in this, because my understanding of the East-West link is that that project already had resource consent and already had a lot of land acquired—hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of land in Auckland—so I’m not sure why it needs to be included here. Is it the case that it doesn’t, or was it just put on the list because it is a project that was specified in the Government Policy Statement on land transport and/or on the fast-track projects list? Is it the case that these projects have been listed because the Crown believes they have a good reason to acquire additional land to put them in place, or is it just because they’re on other lists and in other bills? Does that make sense? I’m pretty sure the East-West link already had resource consent and had already acquired land under the old public works process, and unless they’re substantially changing the designation and changing the project, bringing it back, I don’t see why there would need to be additional land acquired.

The other projects in my tabled amendments—and Mr Chair, if you’d indulge me, I’d like to continue to take another call so I can speak to these.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. First, I’ve tabled some amendments. It’s just eight amendments. It’s not very much. They’re not exactly in the order I want them to be, but they don’t have numbers, so it doesn’t matter: Hamilton Southern Links, Hawke’s Bay Expressway, Mill Road, East-West link, Takitimu North Link—Stage 2, Warkworth to Te Hana, State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere Long Term Improvements Project, and Petone to Granada and the Cross Valley Link. I particularly want to make note of Warkworth to Te Hana. That’s eight different tabled amendments—one for each of these projects—and it’s because these projects in particular I don’t think can be considered critical infrastructure, because they clearly are not going to take us down the pathway of increasing efficiency of our transport system and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

For Warkworth to Te Hana, I have submitted an amendment to remove that from this schedule. I have not suggested that the alternative to the Brynderwyns Hills be removed. I think this is an important point, because often when people are talking about why we need a four-lane road up North, it’s because the Brynderwyns get closed a lot. If that is the case and that is truly the critical link that we need to fix, that should be the first bit off the block to fix. We should be focusing on the alternative to the Brynderwyns now, not Warkworth to Te Hana. Warkworth to Te Hana is not the essential problem with that link. It’s the alternative to the Brynderwyns. I’m just asking the committee to try and consider how we actually fulfil the very intelligent strategy laid out in the Infrastructure Commission’s national infrastructure plan to prioritise our infrastructure, make better use of the infrastructure we have, and try to get the outcomes we actually want.

If the main weak point of State Highway 1 between Auckland and Whangārei, and indeed the rest of the Northland, is the Brynderwyns, logically an alternative to the Brynderwyns should be the highest priority for State Highway 1 north of Auckland. I haven’t proposed removing that one, but I am going to propose removing Warkworth to Te Hana, because I just don’t see in any way how that can be considered critical infrastructure. It’s going to cost a fortune. It’s going to deliver very low benefits—like, no benefits, really, that we couldn’t do in a more efficient way by adding some passing lanes and upgrading the existing road and investing in rapid transit and intercity rapid transit, and possibly coastal shipping, to make it easier to connect goods that might be coming into Northport and then moving them down around the country on the blue highway rather than clogging up our roads, which are always going to be extremely vulnerable to storms and other problems. Of course, at no point in the near future is moving goods by road between Northport and Auckland going to be low emission. We are very, very far away from having that infrastructure unless they were to electrify the rail line and upgrade it massively, which is not on this list of critical infrastructure, sadly, although the fourth main is.

The other one—and I know that I heard one of the Ministers opposite complain that I had Hamilton Southern Links on here. Hamilton Southern Links, in Schedule 2, says “Develop 1 or more roads and associated infrastructure to support Hamilton’s planned southern growth, including by—improving existing roads …”. The reality is that, if you widen roads within an urban area, you will get more traffic. We know this from 70 years of data. You can’t add roading capacity in an urban area and not have it be filled up with cars within five to 10 years, at which point all your supposed benefits of spending all that money are gone. In the interim, we have not spent the money upgrading the infrastructure that would actually make it possible for people to move and for goods to move around our urban areas without having to rely on private vehicles. It’s totally counterproductive, and it’s not going to help productivity and economic growth as much as the Government wishes it would. That’s not what’s proposed here. This is urban highway expansion, and urban highway expansion has never solved congestion, it doesn’t improve productivity, and it actually is counterproductive. That’s just reality. Like, that’s just reality.

I know there are not many people here who’ve extensively studied transport economics, but if you are interested in the topic, and every member here should be—[Time expired]

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): I thank the member for her comments. I’m aware of the commentary around induced demand. I think relitigating that at length is not going to be helpful to the committee’s consideration of the critical infrastructure elements of the Public Works Act. I would point out that the Marsden Point Rail Link, the Northwest Rapid Transit, which is an express busway, separated, It’s a road—unfortunately, for the member—but it’s going to be a dedicated busway, so we think it will be helpful in terms of projects of which the member may or may not approve. There’s an active mode corridor in terms of Papakura to Pukekohe route protection; Pukekohe to Drury rail station, again, of which the member may approve; four tracking Westfield to Pukekohe to widen the existing rail corridor; implementation of the Ōtākaro Avon River corridor regeneration plan, which is about stop banks and pumping stations; lower North Island integrated rail mobility; and the upgrade of and existing rail work .

There are plenty of projects on which members all across the Chamber can agree. They may disagree on others. For example, Warkworth to Te Hana and getting around the problems in the Brynderwyns quite literally are two problems that we can resolve at once, and the Government is determined to do so. The fact that members may or may not agree with the Government’s policy statement in relation to transport isn’t a reason to say that we shouldn’t have a faster and fairer process for the acquisition of land or other property rights in relation to the Public Works Act regime, and that is the subject of the legislation. That is what we’re debating in this Chamber tonight, and that has been the subject of the discussion in terms of Part 2 and, indeed, these same general points that we’ve already made throughout this evening.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to turn to a part that has not been covered in Schedule 1. It’s clause 7(6)(b) of new Part 2 inserted into Schedule 1AA of the Act. This is about the ability for someone to object to the Environment Court. This is the part that that particular provision falls within. One of the things that the select committee did hear a lot about was the real concerns that effectively stripping away the right of appeal to the Environment Court would present in terms of natural justice. I’m interested in the Minister’s response around that, because it was a real concern and one that we have referred to in the Labour Party during, particularly, the second reading contributions. It’s one that I hope the Minister has had a chance to think about.

There is Schedule 2, which identifies a list of different projects all around the country. Now, there’s one project that I’ve been advocating for on behalf of the community that I represent here in Parliament, Palmerston North, and it is listed, as the Minister has said, as the Lower North Island Integrated Rail Mobility project. Now, that’s well known as the Capital Connection when it comes to the Palmy route—a great service. I caught it to Parliament here early this morning, and we are still waiting for that. It must happen. This is something that the Labour Government did initiate the funding for, but it can’t be delayed, and the community can’t wait any longer for that. My question to the Minister is: what’s really important is that, in those three columns in the schedule, the second and the third one, the project description and the approximate geographical location is sort of used as an identifier, and there are a number of changes that have been initiated there, but how important and how realistic is it that those projects are specifically defined as they are?

For example, over a three-year period, there may be some change initiated with a few of these projects, actually. In some regards, that might not affect the actual project description as such, but in some circumstances there may be a direct effect in terms of either geographical location or the specific project description. Is it that these projects are specifically locked in as is, as they are at the moment? Where is the flexibility to deal with any particular change that might eventuate during the process of completing these projects? And does there need to be a provision or, again, is this captured somewhere else?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rather than letting the Minister truncate his answer and deprive us of his eloquence, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Have a good evening.

Sitting suspended from 9.58 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2025

(continued on Wednesday, 20 August 2025)

Bills

Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Related and consequential amendments (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Good morning, members. The committee is resumed on the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill last night, we were on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 6 to 11, “Related and consequential amendments”, and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Madam Chair—that was very loud!

Hon Member: Good morning!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, good morning, everyone.

Hon Member: Full of enthusiasm!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It’s great—it’s great to be loud! We are now on Part 2, as you just said, and, of course, in Part 2 is the schedule that names, specifically, the critical infrastructure projects. The Minister told us yesterday, in our Part 1 debate, that these projects cannot be changed—the project name cannot be changed; projects cannot be added to it except for going through a normal legislative process. The project description and the location—they can be amended by an Order in Council.

There's been some discussion by some members about some particular projects that are on this list. One of them is the Carrington residential development. We understand that they are Government houses and roads, and it could be a mix of both those houses and the roads. I did have a question that I haven't heard an answer from the Minister on, on local government houses—if they could potentially, in the future, be included in this list. I also haven't got an answer on why the amendment to section 185 of the Resource Management Act is needed given that these projects will all be going very fast.

I'm also interested in how these projects arrived on this list. We are becoming accustomed, with this Government, from listing specific projects in schedules that get to bypass normal regulatory processes. I acknowledge this list appears to be—with his comment on the Carrington residential development—all Government projects. That is my first question: can he confirm that all of the projects on this list are, in fact, Government projects and that they are not local projects? And if there are any local projects, could he identify them?

The second related question is to go back to what the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has reported back, where it's said that the projects listed in the schedule come from the Fast-track Approvals Act and some other documents as well. Of course, there were 149 projects on that schedule to the Fast-track Approvals Act and there are about 29 on this. I understand that many of those projects on the fast-track list are private developments, but I'm wondering if he can elucidate on how it is that these projects came to be in this schedule. I presume they had to fit being a public Government work or a public local work and on one of those lists named in the select committee report back.

Then, I'm wondering if there's been an analysis then undertaken into why these projects and how long they will take. That relates back to my question about the amendment to section 185 of the Resource Management Act, because if it is that there has been some analysis, then it would be good to know that. Does the Minister expect them to all go quite quickly? And going to a point that was made by the Hon Julie Anne Genter last night, she was talking about a specific project and saying that her understanding of that specific project was that it already had its resource management consents and it was already designated and a whole lot of land had been acquired. Has there been analysis into how far through all these projects are and, where they are incomplete, what the likely cost of acquiring that land will be, now, through this critical infrastructure pathway as opposed to the normal Public Works Act process—and noting, of course, that that normal Public Works Act process has that Environment Court element that's changed in this bill, to an extent.

Those are my questions. Just reminding the Minister if he can comment on local government housing, section 185, and also how it came that these 29 or so—I might have miscounted—projects are on the list and what analysis has been undertaken to determine how far through they are and what the costs of them being on this list will be.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to members of the committee of the whole House. To the member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Rachel Brooking, I thank her for the questions and comments that she has made this morning. Picking up on the spirit of a couple that were raised last night by her colleague Tangi Utikere in a similar vein, I’ll take all of those together.

First, in terms of local government projects, which, for members who weren’t present last night, flowed out of a discussion originally around the specific project at Carrington, in inner West Auckland, roughly speaking, I suppose you could say—an important project in its own right—and the question more generally as to whether local government projects could be considered as Government works such that they could qualify for inclusion within the Public Works Act critical infrastructure regime, the answer is that they could, yes, theoretically, but they would need to be added to primary legislation after, because, of course, the matter of listing them in the schedule, in this case, does confirm or lock in the status of such projects that are included. Notwithstanding that there are none in the list at the moment, there could be in the future, but only by way of primary legislative amendment.

In terms of the connection with section 185 of the Resource Management Act, I think the question that the member has posed flowed again from the point around—well, particularly around why it would be needed if the intent is to be able to acquire more quickly. I understand this was a recommendation from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in response to a submission from local government basically to clarify the scenario of compensation entitlement should that case ever arise.

In terms of the point around what I would call transitional arrangements, as raised by the Hon Julie Anne Genter last night and reiterated this morning by the Hon Rachel Brooking, analysis in terms of where projects are incomplete, to the extent that projects are historic, having been undertaken and completed or indeed being incomplete now without being listed for inclusion in this regime, then they would not be included in the critical infrastructure piece, so there isn't an additional cost in that sense.

I know that that will be a matter of disappointment in some cases, potentially, but others might view the previous regime as being more helpful to their case. But in any case, the general situation remains, of course, as I said last night, that when you introduce a regime that will hopefully be viewed on most occasions as more favourable, those who have not benefited from that because they were under a previous regime may feel disappointment, but of course, that's not a reason not to introduce a more favourable regime going forward.

Then finally, in terms of the point made by Tangi Utikere specifically as to whether projects that are listed here but might be capable of amendment or a change of scope in time, the safeguard is that the Minister must be satisfied that the scope of each project will not be substantially different as a result of such an amendment, taking into account the project's purpose, location, scale, and the nature of the works involved. The clause expressly says that no new projects can be inserted into the schedule by this Order in Council mechanism. Of course, with that Order in Council, as secondary legislation it will be subject to normal requirements around secondary legislation, including scrutiny by the worthy body that is the Regulations Review Committee.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just looking in Part 2, clause 7 (8), around payment of compensation to landowners or thereabouts. One of the things I’d like to ask the Minister, in relation to some of the projects—well, one in particular: say, the Hope Bypass that has been in the planning stage for a long time and much has changed. There has been a major subdivision built on the boundaries of this. My questions are in relation to any bits of land that may be acquired additionally and whether the changing value of that land is taken into account. The issue of compensation here as specified in how it should be calculated and considered—I guess, it’s the changing land values for projects that are in Schedule 2 and that have been around for quite some time and adjustments may have been made. Are landowners, who may have had indications of potential acquisition, entitled to the additional compensation payments, or how is that worked through? How might the changing land values around those projects be considered by councils or by Land Information New Zealand if some additional land needs to be acquired? Without going through the list of projects in Schedule 2—there are quite a few of them there. Take the Marsden Point Rail Link. I’m assuming it’s on the same rail corridor, but if there are adjustments to be made, who’s entitled to additional payments to speed those up? Or, indeed, is there a risk that some people—given the length of time of these—have been land banking and are going to get a big fat bonus for some of that land acquisition?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member and former Minister for Land Information, the Hon Damien O’Connor, for the question.

I think there are a couple of different things which are helpful to clarify for anyone who is following. One, of course, is the extra payments that might be made by way of compensation, by way of recognition, and also incentive, being an understanding and an acknowledgment from the Crown of the value to the Crown and, more importantly, to the community of the works for critical infrastructure, and an incentive, of course, being to, basically, as the name would suggest, encourage early agreement to acquisition.

Then, of course, as the member has alluded to, there’s the fact that land values can change over time—almost invariably to increase. The amendment to the Act doesn’t change the fact that values may increase over time, and it would be 100 percent of the value as agreed and determined under the Act, anyway, that would be the relevant starting point to which one might add 5 or 15 percent, as the case may be—well, it could be 5 or 20 percent, being 5 plus 15—additional percentage of value.

I do also emphasise, again, as I said last night, that the recourse is to the Land Valuation Tribunal in the event that there’s a dispute about the amount that the land is worth in the first place—that 100 percent figure—so we don’t propose to change that under this legislation before the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to continue the exchange that we were having earlier with the Minister, back on the schedule. I didn’t hear an answer about analysis of the individual projects and how much it will cost to take that land under this process versus the normal Public Works Act process.

Maybe he will say, “Well, that will be done one by one.” He’s entitled to give that answer, but I’d like to know if it’s been thought about or not. I appreciate that to be critical infrastructure, you’ve got to be listed on the schedule, and to be listed on the schedule, you have to go through this process, a legislative process with Parliament. Again, though, if he could maybe give me some comfort: to get on this critical infrastructure project list, you do have to also be a local government work or a Government work before you can be considered for this list? Those are the two little wrap-up questions for me on that list. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the member, the Hon Rachel Brooking. In terms of the analysis of change costs for specific projects, she’s right in suggesting that it would be the case that this would vary on an individual or case-by-case basis. The users of the Public Works Act, being local government or a central government agency—and one might think of the New Zealand Transport Agency or KiwiRail, in the case of transport projects—would be better placed to know how that will affect them, but, of course, as the regime comes into effect and they’re in a position to have the certainty to update their calculations, that will be something on which they will be better placed to answer, and, again, as I say, and as the member herself said, on a case-by-case basis.

I’d remind members that the caps on premium payment are those set out in the legislation; limit on the recognition payment at $92,000 for acquisitions valued at $1.8 million or more. As for incentive payments, they are capped at $150,000 for property acquisitions valued at $1 million or more. That does provide some guard rail, I suppose, for the protection of the taxpayer and certainly to protect the integrity of the system and to enable as many acquisitions as possible for the right amount of taxpayer funding—to the Hon Damien O’Connor’s point. That’s where those limits have been set, or at least that’s the basis on which we have set those out and determined them in this legislation.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a lovely wet day out there, so it’s nice to be inside. Thank you to the Minister for giving us this opportunity this morning to stay warm and cosy.

I really want to build on the Hon Damien O’Connor’s question about the acquisition of additional land where projects exist or where things have already developed. I’m particularly thinking about the Marsden Point Rail Link, because my understanding—and forgive me, I’m not that familiar with the area—is that it’s consented designated land that’s already purchased, fast-tracked, and in the coalition agreement. If that’s true—and that’s a statement made by the Hon Winston Peters—what else are we doing here with the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill? Is it simply making an exclamation point that we’re going to do this or is it actually doing something else? Is it looking to acquire additional land to expand, to grow the footprint? Because that’s what this bill is designed to do, and yet we’re told that everything’s there, it’s ready to go, it’s in the fast track, and it’s in the coalition agreement. It’s fast track.

I’ve really got a query about why in particular this bit is mentioned in Part 2. Why in the schedule? Why would we go there if it’s already something that’s practically done? Perhaps the Minister would like to respond. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for the question. Certainly he’s right to indicate and remind the Chamber, as the Hon Damien O'Connor had, that these are critical infrastructure projects as defined by being within the Government policy statement 2024, including roads of national significance but also projects that have been or will be consented on the Fast-track Approvals Act.

I suppose the characterisation could be that there’s an exclamation mark after those, but I think, more helpfully, members could think about it being what follows the question mark. The question mark is: how is it going to be that we can ensure a fast and fair process of acquiring land to enable the projects that have already been confirmed via those other processes. It’s enabling those projects that have been confirmed in a way that makes sense for the communities but is also fair to the landowners, as opposed to introducing any new projects on the table or merely providing emphasis to those which are already understood by those other pieces of legislation and mechanisms to be a priority for the Government.

Carl Bates: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a closure motion? We’re not quite there yet.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call on Part 2, and I am interested in the operation of some of the projects in the schedule, particularly the ones that aren’t roads. We’ve been discussing that bit. The members of the committee have heard evidence from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) about how these projects work, but we’re still interested in how those projects that will not be led by the NZTA will work in this context. It is a bit different when you’re thinking about de-risking a roading project, which is for public good, to then compare housing, which is a mix of private and public good. People do feel differently about those sorts of projects. A public works acquisition process, where you’re building a road, and even then, have excess land and might use that to develop houses—communities do feel differently about that and about houses being in front of theirs where there’s been an acquisition for a road. We want to be able to address that.

That was actually a helpful answer that the Minister gave around projects that are in the pipeline now. I’m sure the Minister has had advice about this, and I want to get some clarity on it. Those projects where his amendment in Amendment Paper (AP) 350 sets out the introduction of a new clause here—I just want to get his thinking around whether there are projects here that have already been notified or work has begun—as is the case with some of these projects—and, given the time difference between this law and the passing of the fast-track bill, which initially notified these projects, whether there are any projects in there that have already been notified and will create a different financial liability for the Crown? What I’m asking is: what is the value of this amended clause in his AP? Can we understand whether this applies to any particular projects. We don’t have to understand the landowners. What I’m asking for is the value that is being exchanged here from the old system compared to the new one, given that these projects were projects which we anticipated, probably, being in part of this new process. Have those landowners been served with a notice and then will they work through the process, which is set out in his amendment, for the Minister to issue new notices?

I also want to understand at what point the notification process is to be. Some of these projects are well, well under way, and so, I think this new public works acquisition process is actually about other land that might have to be acquired and not the land which is initially acquired even though they are schedulised.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you. I’ll just focus on Schedule 2 and the lists of projects. I think it would be remiss of me as a South Island MP to not ask some questions of the Minister for Land Information, given they are, supposedly, critical infrastructure—critical infrastructure. There’s not too much critical in the South Island. In fact, only about 5½ of the 29 projects listed are in the South Island. I think perhaps if there had been more advocacy from South Island members of Government, we might have a few more because we certainly need them.

So the question is, really, how were these prioritised? I appreciate that we have the Hope Bypass in there. But of the seven bridges to be replaced, there are only two of them in the South Island. It is a region with a lower population, I’ll accept that, but in terms of its importance for export growth, which is what the Government’s talked about, then I would have thought that, actually, the critical infrastructure projects should be where the growth will come from. I see a couple of MPs from the other side of the House there—Government MPs, Ministers—who I thought would have tried a little harder.

Anyway, so maybe the Minister can answer a couple of questions here. Firstly, why weren’t more South Island projects included? Secondly, how was the prioritisation process undertaken? Thirdly, with some of these roading projects, will they include tolling? I see there’s one there that one of the Ministers over there will probably take a reasonably close interest in, and I know the Minister said before it’s not private interest, but it certainly is public interest if it’s in someone’s own electorate. So there is one there. There’s the Ashburton Second Urban Bridge, of course. We’ve got the Hope Bypass, I understand, and then, of course, one of the four-lane highways, I think it is, north towards Pegasus there, the Woodend Bypass Project (Belfast to Pegasus).

So the question would be, given compensation might be paid for land here, is that offset or paid for by tolling that the Government might be proposing as part of these projects? And indeed, was the potential for tolling part of the prioritisation process that the Government undertook when putting these projects in?

I’m not going to go back through all the projects and ask for each of them—I know that Madam Chair probably wouldn’t tolerate that. But the questions are around: why so few in the South Island; what was the prioritisation process to arrive at this list; and did it include the potential for tolling on some of these roadways, and indeed, the potential then allowed it to get into the priority list? But an important critical piece of infrastructure that may be in Southland or on the West Coast—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Or Otago.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —or Otago, indeed—the inability to toll logically in those areas meant that they actually didn’t become part of the critical infrastructure list.

So these are fair questions. There will be ratepayers and truck drivers and people driving to and from work on roads that need to be upgraded in the South Island, and they’ll be saying, “Why not our road?” So maybe the Minister can take a call and answer that.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you. Passionate South Island MPs in the Chamber can continue their discussion, I suppose, wherever they like, but, within the scope of this bill, I repeat—and I think maybe for the sixth time—that the criteria for inclusion within this legislation had nothing to do with tolling or other mechanisms for funding or financing, other than the Crown or local government ability and requirement to compensate landowners from whom an interest is being acquired. Those topics are incredibly important, I will acknowledge, but not for the purpose of this bill.

In terms of the South Island and inclusion of various projects there, again, I emphasise that the inclusion was as critical infrastructure—being an umbrella term that covers those projects—transport related or otherwise under the Fast-track Approvals Act consenting process or the Government policy statements relating to roads of national significance and so on.

I will just, perhaps, respond more generally to the comment, because I’d be remiss not to: the South Island is the better performing of the two islands at the moment, partly because of its reliance on and connection to the primary industry, which is always one of New Zealand’s best and most performing sectors and, in the current time, all the more so. We are grateful as a Government but also as a Parliament, I’m sure, for the export dollars through the primary industry, and also through tourism, and also through international education and other high-performing export sectors. The performance of the South Island is to be greatly commended and encouraged, and we congratulate and thank them for it, and it’s important, of course, that they continue to be supported through various projects, whether included in this regime or not.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think we are much closer than we were last time. The Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. As the MP for Rongotai, it was very important to me to ask some questions about a project that’s in Schedule 2, which is the State Highway 1 Wellington Improvements. There are a couple of concerns.

I do think it’s important to raise for the House the specifics of this, because what we’re talking about in this bill is increasing the ability of the State to take private land for public works, and there’s limited ability to appeal to the Environment Court. In the case of Wellington, this has been a very contentious issue for several decades because obviously there was the original proposal for the bypass—huge community opposition to that bypass because it was destroying some of the most vibrant parts of the city just for a road, and it destroyed the amenity of that area. We all know now, of course, that urban highways don’t solve traffic congestion problems. They destroy value. Some of the highest value land in the urban areas gets taken for a highway that people aren’t even paying for directly.

At the same time, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is considering a bill on congestion pricing. If we had congestion pricing, would we need to take this valuable urban land? Probably not. We would need a lot more public transport.

So the issue I have in the schedule is just how incredibly vague and wide the description of the project is. I keep looking at it and then losing it, but it’s incredibly vague. So it could be any bit of land between the northern end of the Terrace Tunnel. It says, “North of Terrace Tunnel to Kilbirnie, Wellington City”. Now, that is a huge area of central Wellington. I want to know, does this mean that the Government could decide to choose different roading projects than what have been proposed up until now, and then take huge amounts of land in the centre of the city with limited ability for people to object to that?

Let’s not forget that the last National Government tried to do the Basin flyover. They created a new process called the board of inquiry process where they hand-picked a panel that was going to decide the resource consent because it was supposedly a project of national significance. That expert panel, which was appointed by the then National Government, heard all of the evidence from the various experts—this was a streamlined process—and they rejected the consent for the Basin flyover.

Now, that was based on evidence. What concerns me is that we have a Government that’s increasingly not listening to evidence, not allowing community voice. So could the Minister speak to whether this bill means that the Government could designate and take land for a new alignment of the State highway anywhere north of the Terrace Tunnel to Kilbirnie, Wellington City?

At the moment, the State highway goes along Vivian Street. There’s a number of stop lights. The latest proposal, we don’t know; it hasn’t been released to the public. It’s apparently been considered by the board of the New Zealand Transport Agency, but they refused to release it. For a while there, they were considering a diagonal tunnel, they were considering a long tunnel, but now we’re back to the parallel tunnel because it’s cheaper. Of course, it’s not going to deliver any time saving benefits, but they’re still going to go ahead and spend billions of dollars on it, potentially.

In between the Terrace Tunnel and the Mount Victoria Tunnel, there’s a vibrant urban area that includes Cuba Street. It includes a whole lot of businesses, a whole lot of homes, and a whole lot of relatively new apartments that have been built. Does this mean that the Government can designate a new area to be State highway through that part of the city and compulsorily acquire the land with limited ability for the owners of that land to appeal to the Environment Court? Is that what this means?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested that the member for Rongotai is nervous about improvements to the roading project that she’s referred to being faster and, I would say, fairer. Of course, private property rights are hugely important, and on this side of the House, we recognise that. It’s interesting that a Green Party member is nervous about citizens being deprived of private property without recourse, and today is not a day for debate about the Greens’ taxation policy, but I do find that an interesting contrast.

In terms of congestion pricing and whether, hypothetically, this regime would be needed if we had a system that is not yet in place and may or may not be in the future, I don’t think, with due all due respect, that’s within the scope of what we are able to determine in relation to the scope of this legislation. As to whether the evidence of projects being worthwhile or not will be improved—or the opposite—by this process, I would simply point out that nothing in this legislation changes the scope of any of the projects listed, nor can introduce new projects without further legislative amendment. The geographic scope of a project, for example, isn’t and cannot be changed by reason of this legislation coming in.

I’ve already set out the process by which it might be suggested that there could be changes to a project that’s approved under different regimes and, therefore, I emphasise again to members of the committee that the purpose, intent, and scope of this bill is actually for the land or interests in lands that are to be acquired under the Public Works Act where they are critical infrastructure projects, as listed—the change is only as to process, which would be simpler, and compensation, which would be more generous.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll now take an opportunity to ask about two of the three projects that we need some further information on.

The first is Brigham Creek, the rapid transit link there. That’s one that the Minister for Land Information has spoken about in the committee stage before, and so is a useful example for us to really understand the Māori rights and interests there. He will be familiar with the area that is under right of first refusal (RFR) rights for the commercial settlement of Te Kawerau ā Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. That is a shared RFR right that arises from sale of land owned by the prison, by Corrections, and the overhang of the arrangements that were made under the Key Government to develop Hobsonville Point as a special housing area.

There are areas in this project, as schedulised, which are both owned by the iwi or under right of first refusal for commercial settlement. Those are outstanding and unresolved since the first settlement, I think in 2012, because it requires—at some point in time that’s not specified in either part of the legislation—for those two iwi to agree on the way that they will apportion the rights under that RFR. That was something that wasn’t agreed at the time it was settled by Minister Finlayson.

My question to him is about: he’s given an explanation to the committee about how rights that arise under Treaty settlements are protected Māori land. But I’ve asked him, and I don’t think we’re clear on whether those rights that are not crystallised yet will be recognised under this new process. Those rights that exist because there is an RFR right are one thing, and there’s one side of the motorway that they exist on. And then there’s another side of the road that they exist on, on the Brigham Creek side, where there’s New Zealand Transport Agency land that would otherwise be under the RFR of one or the other of those because it was Crown land at the time of settlement. It was part of their commercial redress package.

My question is: there are some which are sort of clear that they are rights which have crystallised; they are part of the commercial RFR of those iwi. When they come up for Crown disposal, they should be settled first to that iwi. Is there a public works application here around that land? Then there’s the more complicated side of the road, which is where the RFR isn’t crystallised because there hasn’t been agreement. In both of those cases, there is a case for public works taking because there is a public good that arises because of a rapid transit network. But these are rights which were arranged by the Crown in deeds of settlement which date back to 2004. We have a sort of hierarchy of what we’re trying to achieve here with fairness outcomes for those original owners of the land, and it would be useful if the Minister would step us through how this process applies to them.

My second question is about the project at Carrington. This is slightly different for the Māori rights and interests here in that I think what I’m really getting at here is the entire project is listed. It’s the whole 40 hectares and, yet, most of that exists. What are we talking about here? If we’re talking about the Crown intervening to acquire land which iwi are already building on for the purposes of public housing, then that is a completely different conversation to acquiring some extra parts to build roads in what is a residential development that exists.

Just to give the committee some context around this, this is a really important area to me. My father was the kaumātua of Unitec for many years. In my life, I have gone many, many times, including for Matariki celebrations of a hautapu down to the puna which exists on that Unitec Carrington site. That is, there is customary title that exists there. There is also settlement land that exists there. There is a commercial RFR around it, but there is a cultural settlement property within that block. That is all underneath the area that the Minister has schedulised here for public works taking.

It is clear what the protections are around that customary land. It’s not clear what parts of land around that puna might be included in this. It’s also not clear what land is intended to be in this new process when those notices that went to the landowners and to the people with rights and interests in building it currently have gone. But those date back many, many, many years and so wouldn’t be eligible under his new amendment or in the old amendment to the original Act for use by this new process. So we need to understand those two projects a bit better.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the Brigham Creek project, that’s within the category of projects that I’ve indicated that I wouldn’t feel able to decide as Minister, given that it’s within the current bounds of my electorate. Of course, for the purposes of the policymaking in the legislation, the history is outlined by the member, and that’s interesting and helpful, but I would be probably foolish to attempt to analyse further, in terms of its eligibility, various parts of the land—on either side of the road, as the member has alluded to—which will be more appropriate for the decision maker to determine on a case-by-case basis in the event that applications are received for the acquisition of land or interests.

Hopefully, more helpfully than that, in response, I think, to a question that the member previously posed around new clause 7 of Schedule 1AA being intended to make it clear that if a section 18 notice of desire is issued after the Act comes into force, then the project cannot opt out of the accelerated process—the response is that agencies have the opportunity to opt out before they proceed further with land acquisition under the new process. They can opt out of taking into account the financial impact of the new regime, and it would be my hope and expectation that that would be made clear to any relevant landowners affected.

As for Carrington, the member’s more familiar, including through familial links to the property and its history, than me, but certainly I would point out that on a case-by-case basis, it will be for the decision maker at the time to consider those, taking into account all relevant factors, including the status of the land as customary land or other, and so I wouldn’t want to prejudge that or do a disservice to any of the parties involved, or potentially involved, by musing more than that now.

So in general terms, therefore, I can tell the member that if Crown-owned land, with the right of first refusal obligation, is needed, then it can be used for the project, but the right of first refusal obligation continues to apply and would apply if that land were to be disposed of in the future.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, I’m just asking members to come up with some new information—new questions. Scott Willis.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate being able to take this call, and I appreciate also the Minister’s acknowledgment that the South Island is the best part of Aotearoa, because I agree—notwithstanding there are some lovely places in the North. Like my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, I’m a proud South Islander, but I also wonder where the Minister for the South Island was when we were looking at priorities here—

Andy Foster: In the South Island.

SCOTT WILLIS: Yeah, stuck in the South Island—stuck in the South Island—because there wasn’t a ferry, quite possibly. My particular interest is not in what the Government can do for the South Island but what the South Island can do for the Government—and for Aotearoa. I’m particularly keen on the HVDC link, and here I think of the high-voltage direct current link replacement project, because this is our main trunk line, and it connects our two islands and it ensures that we keep the lights on. This is really, really valuable, but it also raises some questions because, while we know the work is required and is necessary, it is what we could consider not just critical infrastructure but lifeline infrastructure.

I’m also interested in what thought has gone into not just building something or making sure it’s there but, to come back to a question I had last night—it’s related to the carbon, but it’s essentially about resilience, because, of course, we know that the fault line runs through that part of the country. The question is really about the thought that has gone into the resilience when we’re building lifeline infrastructure. What consideration has been given not just to land acquisition but resilience, because that may well require more than the footprint that is currently occupied by that HVDC link. It may require a wider footprint to ensure that we’re able to keep the lights on when the Alpine Fault goes, because that’s due. As the Infrastructure Commission has said, that’s, let’s see—is it a 75 percent chance that by 2070 we have that major fault? The reason why this is so critical is that, if that trips, we will have a national blackout. While this project is really valuable, and necessary, and critical, and it’s lifeline infrastructure, I’m interested in what thought has been given to whether this legislation is actually going to give us all that we need to keep the lights on.

Subsequent to that, what other futureproofing has been looked at, because we know there are maybe some blue-sky projects such as Taslink, which could connect us to Australia? Has there been any thought given to that HVDC link, which would create one trans-Tasman electricity market, with a 2 to 3 gigawatt HVDC cable over 2,600 kilometres? I don’t see any consideration given to that, as well. I’m taking the Minister’s word that “critical infrastructure” is a tautology, but, perhaps, I take it to think that we should be talking about “lifeline infrastructure” here, not the petty stuff that isn’t lifeline. I really think that’s what we should be thinking of. In that consideration, I wonder if the Minister would like to detail any additional thoughts that have gone into how we build resilience. Does this legislation help us in that way—building resilience—particularly for our energy system that is vulnerable not only to climate change impacts, not simply to space weather, not simply to the Alpine Fault, but vulnerable to being left unconsidered by Government action. If the Minister could reply, I’d really value that. Thank you.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 350 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now move to Schedule 1. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 350 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to Hamilton Southern Links be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to Hawke’s Bay Expressway be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to Mill Road be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to East-West link be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to Takitimu North Link—Stage 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to Warkworth to Te Hana be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to State Highway 1 Cambridge to Piarere Long Term Improvements Project be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 deleting the item relating to Petone to Grenada and the Cross Valley Link be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 102

New Zealand National 49, New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11, New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to our final debate, which is clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on the title, commencement, and principal Act.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just say briefly that I can’t imagine many contributions on the title that are not ironic. It’s very descriptive, being the critical infrastructure as defined within the Act itself. The commencement is on the first day after Royal assent because there’s no reason not to have that default setting, to have this important work in place as soon as reasonably possible, and reflecting the admirable promptness with which the House and more particularly the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has acted in the matter.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I always enjoy the debate on the title and commencement. This is an important part of the House’s scrutiny. This is the opportunity for the Opposition to consider the bill as a whole. It is a longstanding Standing Order that this is an important debate, and, in fact, if it is voted down, the bill itself is defeated, so we must spend time clearly understanding what it is that we are agreeing to here and making sure that the title is true and correct.

I begin with that point because it’s relevant that constitutionally what we are doing here is we are elected by our electorates—most of us are seat holders here. We are elected by a particular community to advocate for that community. Every sitting electorate MP will have an example in their electorate where they have gone to a public meeting, where they have arranged a street corner meeting, where they have been to a constituent’s home where they are affected by the Public Works Act. And you all know that they hate it. They hate it when big Government comes to town and says, “We are removing some of your lawn, we are taking away your home, we are removing your car parks of your dairy,”—

Andy Foster: They also hate it when we can’t build anything.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —“we are taking away the things that are important to you.”—you do this. All of you do this. We say to them, “I get where you’re coming from, but this is so important. This is so important because it enables our community to have the infrastructure we need. We need bus lanes, we need new roads, we need new rail connections. This is really important to the country’s progress. This is important to our growth. We have low productivity rates in New Zealand. We need to get our cities and our regions moving. That is why.”

We front that—we front that in our communities—and we do that because we believe in it when our constituents are asking us to stick up for them. What this bill does, and what it should be called, is the “Public Works (Paying Our Hand-picked Landowners Whatever We Want) Amendment Bill”. This is a bill about choosing projects with no rationale that go on a schedule somewhere to pay them more. It even reaches back to those project owners where the landowners have been told that they will be paid X and now they will be paid Y. This is a bill about making sure that National’s commitment to the landowners who they think they will be paying more for their land will get that land.

When I put it to the Minister of Housing—at the time he was the Minister of Transport in the House when fast-track was going through—he said, “No, we won’t be paying Winton Land Company more.” Is that right when we come to this bill? Is it right that the Winton Land Company will not be paid more under this bill? No, they will be paid more than they would have otherwise been paid under any other legislative process, which both sides of the House have always agreed to in the past.

This is a bill which makes particular considerations for particular hand-picked landowners. I want every electorate MP in this House to understand that next time you front a public meeting and you tell people who are losing their homes, who are losing their front yards, and businesses that are losing their car parks, that this is important, you are also representing to them that on the National Party benches they voted for a piece of legislation which did not include them, which did not include those small-business owners, which did not include those farmers, which did not include those people in the electorate who rely on us to represent their interests.

When the Minister for Land Information in the committee stage said that he cannot make decisions about his electorate, we all are put here constitutionally—this is the way we have arranged ourselves in this Parliament—to represent those people; to represent the little guy who put us here, to make sure that they’re getting a fair deal, and we ask them every day to have faith in the process. This is an extra process. This is an add on. This is something which enables particular scheduled works, which during the committee stage it was very clear had no set of criteria, had nothing they could put their faith on; it was simply because they were there that made them critical. We should be clear about what this means: this is not critical infrastructure; these are hand-picked landowners that the Government has chosen to make this clear.

The Labour Party supports the building of critical infrastructure. We want these projects to happen, but we also want a process which is fair and makes sense for people, so that when we come to this House, we can tell the people who are losing their homes, who are losing their lands, that there is a point to it all, and that there is a process that we can point to that they can have faith in and come to us and work through it and make sure that their interests are represented alongside the interests of the wider community.

People have to believe in this. People have to believe in us. People have to believe in the legislative process here. The commencement date should actually be when the Fast-track Approvals Act came in, because this bill reaches back in time and drags new rights and interests into the mix that weren’t there before. We should be clear that this is also backwards looking and is taking us backwards as a country.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. Every local member in this Chamber knows that the problem that people have with the Public Works Act regime at the moment is that it’s not generous enough and they get mucked around for years. We are being more generous, and we are providing certainty quicker. It is faster and fairer, and for the member to pretend that she and others don’t think that’s a better regime is bizarre and ridiculous, particularly when her point seems to be that we’re improving the system but those who are under the previous regime don’t get the benefit of it.

Well, six years ago, the Government members who are now on that side could have done something about it. The fact that they didn’t is on them, not us. If the performance of that member is anything to go by while they continue not to understand what’s important to New Zealanders, which includes the building of the infrastructure in the first place—as my colleagues and friends from New Zealand First pointed out—as well as treating landowners in a more fast and fair fashion to compensate them more generously and to give them more certainty, then they will remain on that side for as long as they wish.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Last night, I listened to the debate and there were a number of questions raised, particularly concerning the way in which Māori are thinking and feeling about this particular piece of legislation. It won't surprise anybody in this House, I hope, that the whole public works—just that frame and those two words together bring a horror and trauma back. You will all know and you must never forget those things that were true then in the legislation, and the horror that that raises is still true, however polite or seemingly reasonable it might sound.

The question, I guess, for me is around trust and confidence. If I can just use an example, at Marsden Point, for instance—which I used to work at, by the way, for a couple of years when it was called MRC—there were all these same ideas. “Yep, we need to get this infrastructure. We need to stand up this new system.” We had Beldotti and Badger and Chiyoda and all of these names come to town and they did a lot of work there, and I was there for about a year and a half.

If I flick through to right now, I see that in Bream Bay, for instance, Bream Bay sand mining, those are also the other difficulties that are running in that same community. My question therefore is about trust and confidence. Can you assure people that the proper and real and enduring conversations are being held with all in that whole community, not just the chosen few? It impacts on everyone in that very tiny community of Marsden Point, Bream Bay, Ruakākā, and along that whole strip. It's a relatively small piece of dirt, but when you go to Marsden Point, where I used to work, it's like the pipes are filled with concrete, you've got logs loaded up, and so the point is that trust and confidence is near to death or dead in those communities when it comes to what this particular Government is driving.

Just to refer back to the list of stakeholders, I'm just wondering in that context as well how much serious and genuine discussion was sought from the stakeholders—Māori, hapū, and iwi stakeholders, Minister. I'd be keen to know that, because otherwise the name of this will end up as the “Public Works (Here We Go Again, Sorry You Māoris) Bill”. If you could respond. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thinking about the title and the helpful conversation and dialogue we’ve had last night and this morning, because what has become clear is that critical infrastructure is not really what we’re talking about here—unless everything is critical infrastructure, as the Minister has alluded to.

We have here a bill that’s called the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill. That doesn’t really say what it is. We’ve had a to and fro that’s been helpful because the Minister has, essentially, said, “We are ensuring that fast track is going to be delivered through fast-tracked projects.” That’s OK—we know that that’s the Government’s agenda, and we also know that there’s a whole lot of pushback on fast track. I wonder whether the title is actually trying to hide the intention of this bill—whether it’s trying to sort of sweep it under the carpet and say that this is just critical infrastructure, “Don’t worry about it”, when, in fact, it is fast-track projects that are listed in this schedule.

This is something that we’ve discussed, and it’s been quite open in the House. If we all acknowledge that—if we acknowledge that this is where it’s going—why shouldn’t the title say it like it is? Call it the “Public Works (Fast Track) Amendment Bill”, because that would really simplify things. It would show people exactly what is being intended here, which is fast-track projects—they’re all listed in the bill—

Stuart Smith: And they are critical infrastructure.

SCOTT WILLIS: They’re not what I would consider critical infrastructure—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Pet projects.

SCOTT WILLIS: They are certainly not lifeline infrastructure—well, a couple of them are. They are—exactly—pet projects that have been listed in this schedule. We’ve acknowledged how this works. We know that; we’ve discussed it at length. Let’s call it what it is, Minister. Would you be open to changing that chunk, because, really, we do need some clarity here? I’ve just got to say, to call it “critical infrastructure” seems to be hiding exactly what that list tells us it’s there for, Minister.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you, Mr Chair. If it’s hiding, it’s hiding in plain sight. The projects are literally listed in the schedule. We’ve discussed those at length last night and this morning. The phrase “critical infrastructure” is used in the title precisely because it is a defined term in the bill, as discussed.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come to this point that the Minister’s just engaged in with Scott Willis, and that is the importance of the schedule in this bill. Everything really revolves around the schedule, as we’ve heard in this committee stage. I wanted to talk about it in Part 1; I didn’t, really.

Hon Chris Penk: We talked about not talking about it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yeah, we talked about not talking about it. Of course, that is the way that bills work. Even though we debate them in parts, obviously there is an interaction between the parts, and that goes to this stage of the debate which, of course, is on the title.

I take the Minister’s point that critical infrastructure is defined, and it is defined in that schedule. I think it would be really helpful if, in fact, the title was the “Public Works (Critical Infrastructure”—what it is at the moment but with an addition— “as Specified in the Schedule) Amendment Bill”. That is what a lot of our debate has been about, as well, in terms of: if we’re trying to tell people what this bill is about, it’s to do with critical infrastructure, and that is all specified in the schedule. That critical infrastructure cannot change by a Minister making a decision; it has to come back through this House, and that is very important.

Whilst the listed projects in the schedule can be amended in terms of their exact location or their exact description, there are controls that make those amendments that Ministers can do by Order in Council. There are restrictions as to scope, so I’m not hugely concerned about that. What I was concerned about was related to what the past contribution was, as well: what is this relationship to the Fast-track Approvals Act?

The Fast-track Approvals Act, as it came through this House, also used a schedule, and that schedule was used for pet projects. We’ve heard from Arena Williams the concern that this bill is also all about pet projects. I acknowledge that there were 149 projects that came in via that schedule for the Fast-track Approvals Act, and it came in at the committee stage—on the day of the committee stage—and that is different from this list, which has gone through the select committee process. I want to commend this Minister for having the important meaty bits of the bill actually go through a select committee process. I think it’s been quite a fast select committee process, but it’s a specialist piece of legislation and well done on having that actually go to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

We know, and the select committee knows, what is on this schedule and that those projects are not all of the ones that are on the fast track because they do actually have to be public works. They do have to be Government work or local work. As it turns out, the Minister has been clear with us that there are no local works on that list that’s in the schedule.

It’s also interesting to note that there’s not very many works in the South Island, which, of course, doesn’t come as a surprise to us South Island MPs, who are just so disheartened at this Government’s decisions on the ferries which are critical to all of New Zealand’s economy.

Putting that to one side, I was interested in the Minister’s commentary that he wouldn’t be involved, as Minister, in projects in his own electorate. I’m not sure why that would be a problem, anyway—and he might want to expand on this—given that all the projects listed have gone through the parliamentary process and all the projects listed are Government projects. They shouldn’t be to the private benefit of anyone. The only private people who will be getting a benefit from this bill are those landowners where their land is taken, and they’ll be getting more under this bill—more money, more compensation—than they would be under the normal Public Works Act process. Surely the only room for any conflict would be if the Minister was a landowner where that land was going to be taken? That goes to Arena Williams’ point, as well, about who are these landowners that will benefit from this extra compensation?

My final suggestion is that it could be the “Public Works (Critical Infrastructure but We Really Haven’t Done the Analysis into How Much This Will Cost) Amendment Bill”, because I asked a number of questions of the Minister about that analysis and there was—it’s just an opportunity for these projects to go through that process.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): Thank you for the suggestions of titles. Just to clarify, for the sake of the public record, I have no conflicts of interest in relation to any land interest that might be affected by the operation of this public works legislation. But, as a local MP, I want to vociferously advocate for the projects but also for any individual landowners who might be affected—for example, by the hardship early acquisition provisions that already exist in the Public Works Act. It would be wrong for me to write, in my capacity as local MP, to myself as the decision maker as land information Minister. To that extent, I’ve seen it appropriate to step aside from that decision-making role.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. If the Minister for Land Information can take some time to respond to this call—we’re talking about the conflict issue—how is it that he’s the decision maker regarding what goes into the schedule of listed critical infrastructure? The Minister is saying that he’s not that. The point that the Minister is making is that he doesn’t want to advocate once that goes into the process that this bill enables. Thank you for that.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 13 August.

Part 2 Marine reserves, seafloor protection areas, and high protection areas

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now turn to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 25—“Marine reserves, seafloor protection areas, and high protection areas”—and Schedules 2 to 4. Once again, the question is that Part 2 stand part.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am the MP for Auckland Central, which includes two of the Hauraki Islands—Waiheke and Aotea Great Barrier—and I therefore take it as an immense privilege and responsibility to also speak for that part of the ocean, Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf. I actually just want to commend some of the former Ministers who are in the House: the Hon Rachel Brooking, who we actually worked with quite closely to ensure that we had that high-protected area, particularly around The Noises.

What we have presented in this massive Amendment Paper from the Government is unfortunately a situation that has completely blind-sided all of the incredible conservationists and community members—many from my community, particularly on those Hauraki Islands, but also many in the central city who have long advocated for the protection of this jewel in the crown of Tāmaki-makau-rau. We have a complete blind-siding of all the work that they have done being seemingly unwound and undermined by this Amendment Paper chucked on the Table at the last minute. We have heard loud and clear from those conservationists, from community, from iwi, and from hapū that this is simply not good enough.

We have some really basic, fundamental questions that we believe the Minister must answer, because there will be no other meaningful opportunity for him to be held accountable to these questions in particular. The questions that we want to ask are particularly about the carve-outs that are being made, particularly for ring net fishers. And I would really appreciate if this can be a meaningful engagement and back and forth, because I’ll note that I also have tabled amendments in my name, which we’ll get back to. The Minister needs to answer this very basic question: just how much resource—if it can be at all, in any way, shape, or form, quantified by his officials—has been poured, over months and months and months of work, into producing this Amendment Paper, to get us to a place where this Amendment Paper will end up saving approximately, based on the official advice that we have access to, just $14,000 a year in revenue for ring net fishers?

This Government likes to preach a lot about cost-benefit analysis and social investment and about saving money, so my basic question for the Minister is: how much of our collective capacity, channelled through Government decisions, has been wasted to get us to a place where we are now undermining a decade-plus worth of work by community conservationists, iwi, and hapū to get to the place of these high-protected areas in Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf, just for the Government to turn around and say, “We’re going to whack this massive Amendment Paper on the Table, which undermines all of that mahi, to save $14,000 worth of revenue.”? I’d additionally ask: how many ring net fishers are we actually talking about? We’d like some real clarity from the Minister about the trade-offs and the intentions with those trade-offs that the Minister is making. Those very basic questions to the Minister—and I’d appreciate him rising to his feet after I sit, so that we can have this meaningful and proper engagement—how much resource has been wasted in producing this Amendment Paper to save $14,000 in ring net fishers’ revenue?

Let’s go a step further than that and also ask what the trade-offs actually are in terms of long-term sustainability of our fish stocks. Has there been any economic quantification—or cost-benefit analysis, if you will—about the exploitation and the continual extraction that this Government seems to be intent on enabling from our natural environment and how that will ultimately have a knock-on effect to the sustainability of those fish stocks, which, in turn, might actually deplete even more than that $14,000 per annum from ring net fishers, in terms of our totality of our fisheries? Those basic questions for the Minister: how much resource—how much of the taxpayer money that this Government likes to wax lyrical about—has been wasted in producing this Amendment Paper that undermines the will of the people of this country, especially of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and especially of Auckland Central? In turn, how many ring net fishers are actually going to be impacted, and has there been any broader economic analysis whatsoever about the detrimental economic impact that the likes of this amendment will actually have on those high-protected areas and on our fish stocks?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, too, to the member for Auckland Central for reminding me that, when we did introduce this bill, it was part of a package, and that included changes to the fisheries plan, and I was doing that as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I think that all of that has been put to an end. Related to the previous contribution and asking what analysis has happened around this $14,000, what also has happened in relation to work that was on that fisheries plan and the relationship between the fisheries plan and this bill?

Now, going to clause 19A—the new clause 19A in the Amendment Paper—this is the one where “ring net fishing for authorised [person] in certain high protection areas” is, well, authorised. In the commentary about this bill that I've heard reference to, there have been questions around grandparenting and how many of these fishers this exclusion or the authorisation will apply to. The way that this clause works is it says that a “person is authorised to undertake ring net fishing by the Director-General in accordance with subsections (3) to (5);”. Then, if you go down to subclauses (3) and (5), it must be in writing. But subclause (4) is really important here: “The Director-General may authorise a person to undertake ring net fishing only if—(a) the person is a commercial fisher; and (b) the person has, before the commencement of this Act, undertaken ring net fishing in 1 (or both) of the following high protection areas:”. That would appear to be the grandfathering clause, but I'd really like the Minister to engage in this question and this clause.

Presumably, the people who are fishing at the moment, who are doing ring net fishing in these areas, will be able to apply to the Director-General to continue, but nobody else will be able to apply to the Director-General to continue. That might be where the Government's coming from in terms of talking about grandfathering this provision, but later on in the bill—and it is in Part 3—there is a clause 34, which is the ability to transfer permits. The question here is—and noting that is in Part 3—is there anything to stop these grandfathered people, once they exist, from transferring those permissions to fish in an area where otherwise it would be prohibited?

A couple of questions there: one is whether he can take us through exactly how the grandfathering is supposed to work and what the parameters are on that, and the earlier question was about what the relationship is with the fisheries plan that had been consulted on. Consultation was all go when the election was happening. That would have restricted a good number of areas. If he can comment on that at more of a high level and how that interacts with this bill. Thank you.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you. I want to take us back for a minute to clause 16 in Part 2. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister, partly in response to some of what he said when we were previously debating this bill in the committee stage. Clause 16 lays out the purpose of the high protection areas (HPAs), which is “to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity within the high protection areas and, if that biodiversity is degraded, [to] restore it.” So parking that as the purpose, the overarching purpose of this bill, I want to make some comparisons between, of course, the bill that was reported back to this House by the select committee and the changes that have been brought in by the Minister through the amendments.

Firstly, customary non-commercial fishing now no longer needs to meet biodiversity objectives. I will park that and I’ll come back to that in terms of questions a little bit later. But we know, of course, that there were a number of conversations that were had between the fishing industry and Minister Jones that then led to a Cabinet note on 26 September where it was stated that Minister Jones had some potential amendments that were raised with him by the fishing industry, the seafood industry, to which the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, replied he was not interested in progressing them. Great! But between then and October, when the announcement was made, things changed, and those amendments are the ones that we’re debating here today.

I would like to know the rationale for those changes. The Minister spoke previously of the need for balance, which I accept. He made the point that if that weren’t a requirement, then when we were in Government, we would have just turned the entire of the Tīkapa Moana / Hauraki Gulf into a marine protected area. I get the need for balance. We didn’t do that, for obvious reasons. I get the rationale for retaining customary non-commercial fishing. We would have retained it for those similar reasons. But I want to tease out the responses behind that rationale.

It has been mentioned in media reporting that the Minister did not respond to—so I would like a response here in the committee today. It has been laid out that under $14,000 is the revenue of catch from across all HPAs, which means the potential revenue from the two HPAs will be a lot less than that. It is also set out in the Cabinet paper that less than 10 percent of the total catch from existing fishers happens in the HPA. The economic argument there, from my point of view, is very weak. If the Minister wants to defend that as the rationale for making the changes, I would like to hear whether there is other evidence that shows that the revenue is actually higher or that the total catch percentage is higher, and I would like the Minister to point to that evidence.

Now, there’s also been in the media some reporting—and also Seafood New Zealand has pointed out that this is about saving the livelihoods of the fishers who are allowed to now continue to fish in the two HPAs. I want to echo the questions by my colleagues, both Chlöe Swarbrick and Rachel Brooking, around the number of fishers that would be captured by this, because there are parameters in the amendment, but not the number of fisher people who would be allowed to continue. It says in the Minister’s own Cabinet paper that, based on the nature and current distribution of ring net fishing activities in the gulf, it is likely that ring net fishing activity that usually occurs within these HPAs could be relocated elsewhere in the gulf with minimal impact to the fishers. My colleague Rachel Boyack has raised that previously, but there’s been no response from the Minister on that point. If the argument is saving livelihoods and the Minister’s Cabinet paper says that that could actually take place in other areas of the HPA, then that is also a weak argument. If it is not, I would like to hear why not from the Minister.

The third argument is food for South Auckland—again, it has been reported on in the media. Ministers have not commented on that. I would like to know how will the Minister ensure that the fish that is caught in the gulf in the HPAs will actually feed the communities that Minister Jones has alluded to in the media; if not, why not? The Minister previously responded—the Minister laughs. The Minister previously responded that it was “vibes”. I’m not sure that we should be making law based on vibes, Minister, that it is going to the communities, given that you are degrading the health of the moana to allow this to happen. I think it is a fair question to ask where that food is going to go and how the Minister will ensure—I’ve got more questions for the Minister, but I’ll leave it at this for now.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the genuine concerns that have been conveyed amongst the polarising verbiage this morning. I remind members opposite that the protection offered by this bill and the amendments therein being proposed today is the result of a series of compromises over time. We all know that for many, many years, many communities, iwi, fishers, sea cleaners—a whole bunch of people—have been really triggered to get something across the line, and that’s what we’re going to do today. We will not be reverting back to the mediocrity of repetitive noise when we’ve got a job to do, and that’s to protect and triple the protection of the Hauraki Gulf, and that’s what we are focused on.

Environmental pragmatism is exactly what Raewyn Peart of the Environmental Defence Society appreciated and acknowledged in recent articles saying that actually we’re doing a good thing by getting this over the line rather than resorting to six years of ideology.

In response to some of the musings and questions of members opposite—welcome back to the Central Auckland MP to this discussion—the fisheries plan is one that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries is responsible for, and he has conveyed that. I understand that there were monitoring and indicator frameworks that have been established. I’ll also remind members opposite that Central Auckland is not the only electorate adjacent to the Hauraki Gulf.

The second thing is that I really acknowledge and appreciate the mahi of Minister Shane Jones around the rock lobster ban. It’s absolutely fantastic. I understand that some of the members who are not here today—I’ve mentioned three—in a recent Facebook post were seen eating, perhaps trevally, at the Toby’s Seafood market in Auckland recently.

Clause 19A on some electorate campaign: clause 19A, five fishers, no one else; review after three years, and the ability to transfer? No. No ability to transfer—not transferable. Identified by the Director-General by way of their fisheries client number, and the Director-General will issue letters to the five fishers who are involved.

Whilst we’ve received a bit of a lecture today about the economics of the situation, I’m here to respond to some of the ideological fever by saying this: there is going to be a tripling of the marine protection and the Hauraki Gulf, notwithstanding the six years that members opposite have sought under their leadership to get this across the line. Actually, the sea change kaupapa had been going for years before you turned up. Years before you turned up, there were people who were seeking an increase in protection, the dealing to the kina barrens, and a whole range of other activities. That’s where we’ve landed today. I’m very enthusiastic about the energy that’s come to this issue but also as we reach the denouement of this conversation. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I’d just really like to draw the few people who may be tuned into Parliament TV—sorry for your time—their attention to the fact that that is supposed to be our Minister of Conservation currently defending eroding legislation that was first introduced to this House which does do all of the things which he alluded to in his contribution in terms of tripling the protection in the Hauraki Gulf. But he has not done anything to progress that. In fact, if anything, all he has done is actively undermine it.

My earlier contribution at the beginning of Part 2 of this debate was asking the Minister to engage in a meaningful back and forth because, God forbid, the people of this country deserve some answers to some really bloody basic questions. The Minister did not engage substantively in any of those questions. Instead, he just sought to attack the Opposition and he called it “ideological fever”. How dare we ask about the economic analysis that this Government has undertaken! The only facts that we have to go off—based on the official advice that we have access to, that this Minister has received—is that this massive Amendment Paper, which makes carve-outs on behest of the fishing lobby and industry, is only going to save ring-net fishers revenue—not profit; revenue—at $14,000 per year.

The Minister can give us no insight, despite the very specific questions, about how much resource was wasted in the public sector to get us to that point. Nor can he provide any meaningful information, data, evidence, or—I don’t know—even opinion on what the contrast is with the potential economic impact of allowing the undermining of these high protected areas and allowing these carve-outs for ring-net fishers, which ultimately, hopefully, the Minister of Conservation understands that ecology and economy are deeply interconnected. If you allow our resources to not renew because you deplete them to the extent of extinction, then you’re going to destroy this thing that you say that you care about growing, Minister. Frankly, I think that anyone who calls themselves a Minister of Conservation and is currently priding themselves on bringing forward Amendment Papers which actively undermine the intention which he outlined in his contribution just then should hang his head in shame.

There are some more really basic questions that I hope the Minister addresses, because not only is this bad law; this is bad law made badly. The Amendment Paper that the Government decided to drop on all of us did not have the typical requisite official information provided with it, in the form of the likes of regulatory impact statements with bills that are first introduced. Instead, they decided to go through a back door after what has been publicly reported as engagement with the fishing industry, and then drop this Amendment Paper on all of us—again, completely blindsiding the community, the conservationists, iwi, and hapū that the Minister has the gall to cite as advocating for in progressing this legislation today.

The basic questions that we have for the Minister remain—if he’d like to address them—about the actual contextual economic analysis here. How much resource was wasted to put this Amendment Paper on the table to ostensibly save $14,000 in revenue for ring-net fishers? That is a basic question, and if the Minister cannot answer that, then the public should be rightfully ashamed of him in this position. The second basic question is: what is the long-term economic impact of enabling these high protected areas to be undermined by further exploitation from these ring-net fishers? Again, just for saving $14,000 in revenue; apparently—from the best that we can make our heads nor tails of the official information—$14,000 across all of the ring-net fishers. It blows the mind.

We also really want to ask the Minister because, as members from the Labour Party have cited, we have heard time and again from Ministers of this Government that this is apparently about more affordable fish—and they have dared to cite people in South Auckland for that purpose. How exactly is this Amendment Paper going to get us any guarantee whatsoever of affordable fish, especially when he is allowing for the undermining in the long term of our fishing stocks? Basic question to the Minister. Please answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Yes, thank you for the rogue superfluidity that seeps through the sorcerous rage of members opposite. We are of the environmentally pragmatic space on this side of the House, and Raewyn Peart—again, one of the most well-known commentators and enthusiasts around the Hauraki Gulf—is absolutely in the headspace that we are in. Back it, be happy, move forward, and get ready for more protection. One fulltime-equivalent in the Department of Conservation has basically been working on this space for the last year. And as members opposite know, I might have a little bit of experience in the Hauraki Gulf that they may not have had experience with, so when iwi and Māori are thrown into random comments around what they want in the Hauraki Gulf, I would recommend that this House be absolutely careful and prudent around the selective use of narratives and polemics that actually may not recognise reality.

In relation to the rationale for removing biodiversity objectives from the requirements for customary fishing, as I mentioned—three times—in the previous committee of the whole House session that we had—

Ryan Hamilton: One more time.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ll remember this one more time: I do not consider it appropriate for customary fishing to be regulated by the biodiversity objectives. I do not think that it’s up to the Director-General of the Department of Conservation or even members opposite to tell mana moana what their customary fishing should be or shouldn’t be. That’s why we have been very carefully listening to iwi and Māori, listening to the very people that members opposite use as a sword to attack this debate and this committee of the whole House.

They have said to me, actually, “We don’t want our tikanga to be subject to a discussion around biodiversity. That’s a matter that’s for the Fisheries Act. We don’t want even more green tape or blue tape wrapping around the exercise of tikanga. No, we don’t. What we want to have”—this is what I’ve been told—“is customary fishing intersecting with the Fisheries Act and not another blue-tape weight on our shoulders when we are exercising our tikanga.” That is what I have heard, and we have channelled that into amendments accordingly.

Now, in relation to the targeted kahawai, trevally, and grey mullet species typically of low interest to the export market, whilst we can’t trace every fish caught we do know that these types of fish are primarily for domestic consumption and more affordable than other options.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. The arrogance of this Minister is outstanding. The fact that the conservation Minister cannot provide a rationale for weakening protections to the Hauraki Gulf—that is already degraded, and the degradation is laid out in great detail in his own Cabinet paper. He has no remorse that he's weakening these protections. All he tries to do in this House is to take credit for work that wasn't even his, that was the culmination of 10 years of work by stakeholders. All he sits there and does is take credit for this. He cannot give us a rationale, despite repeated questions and requests for an economic rationale. Tell us why fishing cannot be moved to different parts of the gulf when your own Cabinet paper says it can. Tell us how degrading the gulf is actually going to be beneficial to anyone. He cannot give us answers to this, and so it is very clear that all this Government is doing is pandering to the demands of industry lobbyists. That is literally the only answer that we on this side of the House can come to, because the Minister will not answer any questions in a way that is substantive.

Let me ask again a couple of questions—[Interruption] All members opposite can do is heckle. Take a call! Take a call and tell us why your Government is weakening protections in the gulf. Try and give us a rationale that makes any sense. I dare you to.

I'll leave the point around customary fishing, although the Minister—actually, no, I won't, because I would like some answers from the Minister as to who he's consulted with when it comes to mana moana. There were submissions that those of us who were on—the Minister’s not even listening. So much care for conservation, the Minister’s not even listening to our questions, let alone giving us any extensive responses here. All he's doing is having a chat with the hecklers on the other side of the Chamber.

Anyway, give us some answers, Minister. Who did you consult with when it comes to mana moana asking for customary non-commercial fishing not to have to meet biodiversity objectives? We heard the opposite on the Environment Committee as well. I know that many of them made the point that it goes to the social licence, and that is an important point whether the Minister thinks so or not. There was also part of the amendment that actually took out the requirement for regulations to be made collaboratively with mana moana, from memory, and it's weakened that to just consultation with mana moana. I would like to know where that came from as well. But, going back to my point, who did the Minister consult with?

I also have questions that the Minister has not answered when it comes to new clause 19A in Amendment Paper 260 around the substantive detail around ring-neck fishing for authorised persons. Who are they? The Minister named one seafood outlet. Does he want to name the other fishers who would be benefiting from this?

Arena Williams: Why is he naming fishers?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, why is he naming one and not the other? If he's going to do that, then tell us who these fishers are. Tell us why they cannot fish in another part of the gulf and that protections in two high protection areas have to be weakened in order to allow them to do so.

Can the Minister confirm that new clause 19A is a grandfathering? The grandfathering of this particular provision has been alluded to in media reports. Is this the provision that grandfathers it and, if so, how? It's not very clear to me in that clause.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I would be very, very cautious before I start questioning my experience in the Tīkapa Moana. Unlike others who speak from advocacy and the confines and privileges of this House, I have been responsible for actually establishing aquaculture in the Hauraki Gulf: mussels, ecklonia restoration, and scallop restoration. I've also been responsible for progressing and processing a variety of tourism concessions in the Gulf. I've also been responsible for encouraging a whole range of coastal restoration, particularly around places like Ōmana. So the undermining attacks on my experience I would treat with severe caution, in relation to the types of representatives that I'm sure members opposite know very, very well.

Shall I list them, just so you know the types of people that I engage with around the imposition—now rejected through this amendment—of rogue biodiversity objectives over and above customary arrangements? Whether or not that's Herearoha Skipper and others from Ngāti Pāoa, Paul Majury from Marutūāhu, David Taipari from Marutūāhu, Nicola MacDonald from Ngāti Wai and Ngāti Rehua, Mook Hohneck from Ngāti Manuhiri; Ngarimu Blair and others from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākai, or Billy Brown, Laurie Beamish, Jada MacFie, and others from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, I could list 50 people very carefully and their view that actually the encroachment of Kāwanatanga and regulation on customary fisheries is not supported.

Hence why we have said that, no, customary fishing already has an interaction with the Fisheries Act. We're not going to go and double down on blue tape over and above that through imposing biodiversity objectives not created or determined by Māori, but by a range of individuals and organisations, on that tikanga—we aren't going to do that.

So, again, it’s 10 years of work—actually, it's been a lot longer than that—and if the members opposite had taken the time to read through a variety of reports from 25 years ago, they would also see that the aspiration to deliver better protection of the Gulf continues to be channelled in different ways. But, in light of what we are trying to progress today, absolutely we are committed to tripling the marine protection of the Gulf and to ensuring that tikanga is actually acknowledged but not controlled, and that's the difference of ideology in this space. We are not trying to impose more regulatory impost on the exercise of tikanga; we are just recognising it for what it is. It has its interaction and, actually, we're very comfortable with that.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to pick up specifically on the Minister’s admission—you know, it’s clear, with the bill, that he said a number of engagements and compromises have been made. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions about that, particularly in relation to the timeline of the decisions that led up to this amendment bill.

I’ve got a timeline here, which really clearly outlines the stages, particularly of the Cabinet decisions, which led up to this Amendment Paper. What it makes really clear is that the Minister was not accepting of these kinds of exemptions earlier on in the process. This timeline makes it really clear. For example, on 26 September there was a Cabinet paper that made it really clear, that literally said you’ve met with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, who’s raised potential amendments, and that you’ve indicated that you do not wish to progress any further amendments. And, then, just four days later on 30 September, we then suddenly had evidence that these amendments had actually been inserted into the Cabinet papers and the Minister was recommending that they actually be implemented.

Now, we’ve heard the Minister say both that he’s accepting of the evidence that these exemptions will undermine the purpose of the whole point of the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill, but then we’ve also heard him say that he’s got new advice from the Department of Conservation saying that it will have minimal impact. Now, what I’d really like to hear from the Minister is: will he share with the public and with this committee today what that advice actually is so that we can be much more informed and understand those compromises that have been made? Right now, we’re just in the dark about it and we’re having to take the Minister’s assertions based on not a whole lot. I would love to hear directly from the Minister about his process and whether the evidence about that minimal impact came before or after his decision, and what compromises does he believe he’s been willing to make to allow these specific limited exemptions for these ring-netters.

He talked, just before, about we don’t want to add this excessive regulatory burden and make it really complicated. How does he perceive the exemptions for the ring-netters will actually operate in practice? What we know is when people are out in their boats fishing—how do they identify and how will authorities identify who can and can’t be fishing in these high protected areas? Presumably, the community is going to be absolutely clued in to where these areas are and they may be approaching or questioning different vessels and what they’re up to and who’s allowed and what not—how is this actually going to work? Some response from the Minister about the pragmatics of that would be much appreciated. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to come back to the call that I took last week at the beginning of the committee stage on Part 2, because the Minister gave some answers to my specific questions that were, to be honest, far too broad and didn’t actually get into the specificity of what I was digging into. That is the matter of the section of the Amendment Paper that allows ring net fishing in two of the high protection areas (HPAs).

I want to come back to that. Just so that I’m really clear, it’s Part 2, clause 19, “Customary fishing in high protection areas”, on page 16 of his tabled Amendment Paper 260. I just remind the House that the reason we’re digging in and asking these questions to get detailed answers is that we’ve asked the questions; we actually haven’t had the detailed answers on this part of the Amendment Paper. It hasn’t been to a select committee. In usual practice, these types of changes would sit before a select committee so that we can actually get answers to the questions. So I’ll keep this call quite short because it’s specific, my question.

If you look at the Cabinet paper—which, again, I note again, is actually the Minister’s own words, so this is not advice he received or from any other organisation; his own words. Paragraph 49, on page 9 of his Cabinet paper, says: “Based on the nature and current distribution of ring net fishing activities in the Gulf, it is likely that ring net fishing activity that usually occurs within these HPAs could be relocated elsewhere in the Gulf with minimal impact to the fishers.”

My question was: what specific advice has the Minister received in order to inform the comment he made in his Cabinet paper that specifically states that this fishing activity could be relocated elsewhere? Where, Minister—where could it be relocated to? What advice did he receive? There would be advice that actually forms the guidance for the writing of this paper, that is in his own name. And I note before that the under-secretary, Jenny Marcroft, yelled out that the reason these places have been chosen is because that’s where the fish are—well, actually, the Cabinet paper says otherwise. The Cabinet paper says something entirely different to what she yelled out. So maybe she could take a call and elaborate on the advice she’s received as the under-secretary to show that this is the best place in terms of where the fish are. It specifically states here that that activity could be relocated elsewhere with minimal impact.

That’s my specific question. It hasn’t been answered with accuracy, and I’d like to hear from the Minister.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Mr Chair. In relation to the question on who the fishers are: no, we won’t be releasing those names. That’s a privacy matter. Given some of the reported violence against these fishers—absolutely repulsive behaviour—we will not be releasing those names. But I’m sure if members opposite have a view, they too will exercise caution around that.

In terms of ring net fishing exemptions and enforcement, there are proposed to be six full-time rangers, shoreline technology, a collaboration between the Department of Conservation and the two councils—Waikato Regional Council and Auckland Council—and Fisheries New Zealand to ensure that the appropriate enforcement and compliance action is carried out, including on that small number of ring-net fishers.

Will we share advice on the ring net fishing decisions? I’ve been advised that the conditions on ring net fishing will mean that the impact beyond targeted species is expected to be minimal. All advice I’ve received will be released proactively.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to be crystal clear in response to the earlier contribution from the Minister in which he cited that members of the Opposition were apparently putting attacks on his experience, particularly in the te ao Māori. I just want to be crystal clear that’s not what we were doing. Minister, none of this is personal.

This is a matter of principle: the principles of Aotearoa New Zealand. And, actually, we think it’s kind of about what words mean, because you can’t say that something’s a high protected area if you’re then going to undermine that high protection. We would say, Minister, that if you do want to entertain or engage with that previous experience that you yourself noted, we wouldn’t fight you to apply that experience to the work that you do as Minister of Conservation, which I think would be the opposite of saying that it’s too expensive to save our endangered wildlife. More so than that, if you want to talk about how we should not be having tikanga in the space of this legislation subjected to greater regulation, then that, Minister, is an approach that you around the Cabinet table should apply to everything else that you’re doing, whether it be the Regulatory Standards Bill, education, health, Resource Management Act reforms, or the water services bill that went through this House earlier this morning. All of which sideline te ao Māori and tikanga Māori.

But back to the kaupapa in front of us. That was quite an extraordinary contribution from the Minister earlier, in which he finally responded to one of the three questions that I put to him with regard to economic impact and cost benefit analysis. He spoke to how the resources that were used to produce the Amendment Paper that is on the Table before us for this bill, dropped by the Government and completely blindsiding community conservation, iwi, and hapū, who all worked on that Sea Change project for the better part of a decade. The Minister was saying that the only resources that have been used for a year on that Amendment Paper was one fulltime-equivalent in the Department of Conservation. This is brand new information and what that information tells us, with a cursory Google, is that the approximate salary of one public official is around $100,000. We’re talking about around $100,000 cost if we’re to take the Minister’s response at face value for producing the Amendment Paper that is currently on the Table, to save, ostensibly, apparently $14,000 in ring net fishers’ revenue.

A back of the napkin calculation tells us that the cost of that Amendment Paper is seven times more expensive than the money that’s being saved. This from the Government that waxes and wanes lyrical about waste of taxpayer money. That’s not even to touch the issue of the bigger problem that comes with exploiting and exhausting our natural environment to the point that it can no longer produce the resources that we desperately need. The Minister exposed in his lack of answer earlier that there has been no economic analysis whatsoever on the long-term impacts of enabling these ring-net fishers to operate in these so-called high-protected areas.

This brings me to the two Amendment Papers that are in my name on the Table, which I would really invite members of the Government to properly consider—not just vote in the way that they are told by their Ministers but to truly consider—the principles that we are trying to achieve through progressing this legislation. The noble principles that the Minister gets up and cites every time he adds a contribution to this House about increasing the protection for our biodiversity.

The first Amendment Paper in my name requires that if there are going to be any further exemptions or carve-outs to these high-protected areas to this legislation, that it cannot be done through the back door; that it cannot in any way, shape, or form be exposed to the same kinds of allegations that we have seen levelled against the Amendment Papers in the public sphere with regard to back-door access for lobbyists who can access our Ministers in their rooms in the Beehive and make these kinds of deals.

My first Amendment Paper would require explicitly that any further exemptions, if there are to be any—because we believe there shouldn’t be, but if there are to be any—are brought back to this House for democratic participation and due scrutiny. The second Amendment Paper requires that there is a sunset clause on these carve-outs for the ring net fishing exemptions. We are, I believe, being incredibly charitable with this by saying that that sunset clause should operate with a three-year time horizon, because if the intention is to signal a transition into greater conservation, then that is precisely what this Amendment Paper would achieve.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Rachel Brooking, but before I take the next call, I want to make it very clear that I would like questions rather than speeches for the next section of this—questions directly to the Minister.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank the Minister for answering one question in his barrage of very long and interesting phrases—I’ll come back to those in a minute because they are relevant—but I asked about the grandparenting and how he was going to be sure that the grandparenting could not be transferred, and his answer was that there would be a letter from the Director-General about that. My follow-up question to that is: does he think it would be more robust if that was specified in the legislation or—we’re back on his Amendment Paper; we’re back on new clause 19A, which is on pages 16 and 17—does he think that subclause (5)(c) could be amended so that “contain any other information prescribed by the regulations” and that the relevance of not being able to transfer could be specified there or somewhere else in that clause?

Also, I asked some questions about the role of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries in the Hauraki fisheries plan and, also, the change of the name with the Ministers. I haven’t heard a good answer to that, but I’m wondering, when the Minister uses phrases like “sorcerous rage”, if he is in fact pretending to be the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and if they have now become one?

I’m also interested, when he said that he would “treat with severe caution” questioning his experience, if that was a threat to the members of the Opposition? I know the previous contributor—I won’t repeat what she was saying—was basically saying this wasn’t personal, but the Minister named a long line of people, many of whom I’ve dealt with in the past and I have full respect for these people, but what I want to clarify is: was the Minister saying that in his list of names, including people like Nicola MacDonald and others, they wanted the changes in this Amendment Paper to those biodiversity objectives? Is that what he was saying? That is a very important thing to know. He can make his point that the Minister knows a lot more about this part of the country than, say, I do. I accept that fully, but it’s not relevant to the bill. What is relevant is his Amendment Paper that is changing reference to those biodiversity objectives. Do those people that he mentioned support these changes? Was that his point? Was his point that they support the changes to the biodiversity objectives, or was his point that he knows and talks to a lot of people, or was his point something in between that they have been consulted on the amendment? That wasn’t clear, and it’s very important because those names are now in the Hansard.

I note that during this committee stage, I have been getting messages from people—I won’t name them—people who have been named in this Chamber by the Minister where he has made it sound like those people are in support of the amendments. They are very clearly not in support of the amendments, but they do want this legislation to pass. That is my position as well, Madam Chair. I want this legislation to pass because it is better than the current state, but significant amendments have been made, and it’s unclear why they have been made. I would like the Minister to also reflect that when he is bandying around these names, does he do that in saying that these people specifically endorse his amendments that are on this Amendment Paper, or that these are people who have spent their lives and will continue to spend their lives protecting the Hauraki Gulf both now in the form that it will be in this bill, and that they will want to go further as well?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Taking your guidance, Madam Chair, on wanting more questions, I will—this is my first call today—ask every single question that I have written down diligently and prepared for this committee stage now to the Minister of Conservation.

Firstly, though he has left on the table any answer to my question about the safeguards to protect Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s 20-year mussel bed restoration at Okahu Bay, can he confirm that shellfish restoration projects that counter sedimentation and pollution in the gulf that are led by whānau and hapū are not changed by these amendments? Given the removal of “hapū” and “whānau” in his Amendment Paper—which is new material—I want to clarify whether they still should continue, whether there should be a downing of tools on those, or whether they need somehow to have some sort of sanction from the body that sits above them.

The next question is whether the bill dilutes customary rights and kaitiakitanga under the Fisheries Act in favour of commercial fishing. I think he has alluded to that, so my specific question for him is: for those marae at Motairehe, Kawa Marae, and Umupuia, the whānau there have section 168 permits actively to test and manage the shellfish beds there. That is part of a biodiversity requirement in those permits—they are also customary fishing permits. What is the status of those permits now? Are those conservation objectives intended to continue under his amendments? Have commercial fishing interests been given a greater legal weight here than the environmental and cultural stewardship of hapū and whānau? Given that those hapū and whānau that are progressing some of the projects that he himself has spoken about—like the shellfish restoration projects, the mussel restoration projects, the rock lobster restoration projects that he has referenced in this committee stage today—are they now secondary to the commercial objectives that iwi trusts would hold, given that they hold the fisheries rights?

With the Department of Conservation now the lead agency, what is the position of Auckland Council to still be mandated to consult mana whenua and local hapū on marine protection decisions? It is council process that they would engage with hapū in some situations. It is council process that they have taken a view that, though there are 19 iwi in the Tāmaki-makau-rau area with registered rights and interests, they have arrangements specifically to recognise interests of hapū in particular areas. One of those is Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei at Okahu Bay, but there are others. Those are important parts of the way that councils around the country progress their relationships under Te Tiriti o Waitangi with hapū and with whānau. Those exist at a hapū level, not an iwi level. What does his Amendment Paper mean for those councils?

The next question is the bill appears to weaken collective governance envisioned in the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed. He has told the committee that he has engaged with Paul Majurey. What did Paul Majurey say about the way that this bill interacts with those claims of hapū, which are not recognised as iwi because they will be recognised in a different way under that collective redress Act? How is it that the hapū that are recognised that have Treaty settlement rights and interests that arise from that collective redress going to be ensured a seat at the council table and a seat at the biodiversity decision-making table and those arrangements in the tai timu tai whenua sea change report that Mr Majurey is an architect of? Is it clear how those hapū will be engaged, or will they now have to work through a new process with what is a recognised iwi?

I think the Minister told us in our last engagement on this that all of them will be iwi. Is that now something that will then flow through to the collective redress way that those customary rights and interests act? I think that would be news to Mr Majurey because, over a long period of time, the rights and interests of hapū have been treated differently to the way that iwi are recognised in these collective redress settlements, and so the Minister should make that very clear to this committee.

The next question is the bill’s interaction with the marine and coastal area (MACA) and the Resource Management Act is unclear at the moment, particularly with those MACA rights under threat by this Government’s advertised work programme—but no legislation that we can look at here. This amendment is clearly in response to that work, but we don’t have any eyes on what the intended legislative reform to the rights of hapū and whānau in MACA are. There are 44 live claims here. There are claims here that have gone back centuries and they interact with the customary rights and interests that have, at different times, been settled in different ways. The settlement approaches that apply to the Hauraki Gulf in the mid-1990s, particularly from Ngāti Whātua, are very different to the ones that were settled around the 2011 to 2014 collective redress period.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from the Hon Tama Potaka, but I will say that I heard a reasonable amount of repetition coming up, so I’m going to take a call from the Minister and then I want people to be precise from here on in.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Madam Chair, thank you for that opportunity to respond to a variety of questions, which I’ll do one by one.

Especially around the hapū and whānau and marae comment, I mentioned this last week a couple of times—if the member’s contention is that 100 or more hapū or more be seated at the table with the Auckland Council or Waikato Regional Council. That’s probably not what was intended by the question, but what I did say is that, for hapū and marae and whānau, their interests would be treated accordingly through the iwi. I’ve said that a couple of times now, and I’ll repeat again that the work of various hapū—and I understand that the member might be trying to define what an iwi is; I won’t have that debate again. That was done many moons ago in the fisheries litigation. The work of hapū and whānau will continue so long as it’s not prohibited by the bill.

I expect that any mussel restoration at Ōkahumatamomoe down in Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei will continue accordingly—that sort of monitoring won’t need a permit. The removal or the introduction of mussels in a high protection area is slightly different, and that may need a permit. The status of fishing permits that exist for restoration reasons—again, any activity in conflict with the prohibitions of the bill will need a permit under the bill. The provisions in new clause 19A mean that the clauses can only apply to the five fishers who meet the criteria outlined. In relation to the director-general’s letter authorising ring net fishing to be specified in the legislation: it is—read new clause 19A(4) and (5).

There was a question by one of the members opposite, who’s currently not in the Whare: will any further amendments be done through primary legislation rather than regulations? No.

Steve Abel: Point of order.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Other than the possibility to repeal the ring net fishing provisions following the three-year review, we will not be pursuing a sunset clause; we will be pursuing a review.

Rachel Boyack: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Point of order from Rachel Boyack.

Rachel Boyack: Madam Chair, Steve Abel was trying to make a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m really sorry. I was just engaging with the Clerk for a moment. Point of order, Steve Abel.

Steve Abel: The Minister mentioned the absence of a person from the Chamber, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I didn’t pick up on that, but if the Minister did that, it’s something that we don’t allow in the Standing Orders.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Madam Chair, what I referred to—FYI—is that someone who’s not in the Chamber made a question: the question was here, and then I gave the answer. I did not refer to that person’s name.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That sounds fair to me, so the Minister may carry on with his answer.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the bill affect Auckland Council’s processes for marine protection? No, but they may consider existing protections when making decisions.

Just in relation to the fulltime equivalent (FTE)—again a question that was previously asked—the FTE at the Department of Conservation has worked on the whole bill, not just the amendments. I think there was a conflation, thinking that one FTE has been working just on the amendments. It’s not just new clause 19A; it’s been one FTE working on the whole bill, and of course we have our expert colleagues here today.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. I’m speaking to new clause 19A in Part 2 of Amendment Paper 260, “Ring net fishing for authorised persons in certain high protection areas”—specifically, understanding a couple of things. In the course of the determinations the Minister made around allowing exemptions for ring net fishing, which are outlined in new clause 19A, the high protection areas (HPAs) which are allowed to have ring net fishing in 19A(2) are Kawau Bay, Rangitoto, or Motutapu high protection areas. I wonder if the Minister can explain to us why those specific high protection areas were selected?

Can he explain in terms of why they'd be eligible for exemptions, when the official advice stated that, while the continuation of ring net fishing and HPAs may benefit some ring-net fishers, it is likely their catch—that usually occurs in these HPAs—could be relocated elsewhere in the gulf? It's not actually—well, the question has not been answered, so I'm trying to put it another way. Why did the Minister choose Kawau Bay, Rangitoto, and Motutapu high protection areas, noting that Seafood New Zealand recommended that ring net fishing is provided for in five proposed high protection areas: Kawau Bay, Motukawao Islands, Pakatoa, Tarahiki, Rangitoto, Motutapu, and The Noises?

The other thing that I would like to understand from the Minister is that, in the course of the process of the decision making, whereby he moved from opposing there being the allowing of fishing in the high protection areas, and he then decided that he would allow it on 30 September: what were the conversations that were had with the Ministry for Primary Industries in his meeting with Minister Jones, himself, and the Ministry for Primary Industries on 24 September from 5 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.? What was the content of the conversation that was had about the pressure that they were under from Seafood New Zealand to allow the ring net fishing? Can the Minister please elucidate on that?

My third question is new clause 19A(4): “The Director-General may authorise a person to undertake ring net fishing only if—(a) the person is a commercial fisher”. In determining to undo the primary structure of this legislation designed to protect the gulf with high protection areas, part of the negotiation to achieve that was with recreational fishers. And recreational fishers bought into the principle that for the good of the overall health of the fishery, that these areas should be high protection areas—absolutely off limits to any kind of fishing except for customary. Now, rec fishers bought into that.

Why, in his determinations, did he not think that rec fishers had some right to be included in consideration if he was now going to allow commercial fishers? Matt Watson, who is a high-profile New Zealand rec fisher, is one of the fishers who's very upset about the Government's position on this. What is the Minister's response to those rec fishers who are rightly dismayed that they are expected—and many of these people are your everyday common fisherman or fisherwoman who go out to catch some kai to eat for their family table, and they are not allowed to fish in these areas, but the commercial fishers are. In his considerations, why is it that he gave special preference only to those commercial fishers and he did not consider the other people who have an interest in the gulf, including the rec fishers?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): There’s been a number of comments and spurious speculation about what goes down in meetings. I didn't get any pressure from Seafood New Zealand around the nature of various amendments within the amendment bill presented. I know that there will be some members opposite that would like to throw a Hail Mary about what may or may not have happened; no, we're not in that space. The space we're in is getting this matter moving and moving forward. I won't draw on a long line of speculation.

In relation to the rec fishers: again, it's comforting to know that members opposite actually acknowledge that there is some fishing taking place in the high protection areas, albeit exhorted off to the other side—that, actually, there is fishing taking place in those high protection areas. And I'll remind members that there has been a compromise over these matters for many, many years. We have reached a space where, actually, through the democratic process—it's not me that decides; it's this House that decides how we progress the amendments through to legislation. It's not me; it's this House—and the parliamentary process prevails.

Some members opposite would ban all fishing; we won't. Some members opposite would like to see a lot less fishing between that line to Hāwere-a-Maki out to Colville. That is the view of some members. That's not the space we're in because we acknowledge that there are recreational, customary, and other fishers who seek to continue their mahi—recreational or otherwise; feeding their whānau—within the inner gulf to Moananui-ā-Toi-te-Huatahi. We are very comfortable in progressing Part 2 to its logical conclusion.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 260 amending paragraph (a) in clause 18(1) and deleting proposed new clause 19A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments to the amendments not agreed to.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan's tabled amendment to replacing paragraph (a) in proposed new clause 19A(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Amendment Paper 260

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Lan Pham’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 inserting subclause (4A) in proposed new clause 19A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick's tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 inserting new clause 19B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 260 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 18 inserting new subclause (3) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Permits, enforcement, and regulations for protected areas

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 26 to 69, “Permits, enforcement, and regulations for protected areas”, and Schedule 5. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question of the Minister about Part 3, clause 67, which is around the “Regulations for restrictions and conditions that apply to authorised persons undertaking ring net fishing”. Madam Chair, if you will allow me, this clause is referenced in Part 2, clause 19A(5)(b), which is a section I was going to ask some questions about in Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm not allowing you to go back to Part 2—only as the clause relates to Part 3.

RACHEL BOYACK: This is as it relates, so I'm asking as it relates.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as it relates to the specific wording in Part 3, I will allow it.

RACHEL BOYACK: That is exactly what I'm doing, Madam Chair. In clause 67, it says, “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister responsible for administration of the Fisheries Act 1996, make regulations that prescribe restrictions and conditions that apply to an authorised person undertaking ring net fishing in accordance with section 19A.” It refers back to clause 19A.

I've got a question to start with, and I'll probably have to come back because there's a number of questions in this clause, around that “authorised person”. What happened during scrutiny week when the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries appeared before the Environment Committee, he advised the select committee that there would be three authorised people who were going to be allowed to undertake ring net fishing in the high protection areas as he said that they would be named in the legislation. My question to the Minister today is: this is specifically talking about an authorised person; who are these authorised people? Why has the Minister chosen to go against what the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries advised the select committee?

Now, I'm not suggesting either way which way is a better option. I think that it's actually unusual to name parties in legislation—unless you're the Government and you’re naming fast-track projects. It's unusual to do that. However, the reason I'm asking this question is that the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries did actually state that those authorised people would be named in the legislation. My question to the Minister is: why have they not been? How many authorised people will there be, is my next question. There have been various numbers thrown around, and I understand the kind of common number of people that's thrown around is three—three—people who will be authorised. Again, this doesn't stipulate the number of authorised people. Will there be three? Will there be six? Will there be 10? And what parameters will be put in place to ensure that it can't continue to expand, is my other question to the Minister. There is concern about the sheer number of people who may be able to access this exemption and be granted an exemption and be considered an authorised person. I will come back. I've got more questions for the Minister, but that's my first one.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): I’ll repeat the answer that I gave earlier: these fishers will not be named. It’s not the current intent of either myself or the Minister of fisheries to name those people. As I’ve mentioned before—and the member may not have been in the Chamber—there have been some concerns around the abuse and violence levelled towards various fishers across this space. Those fishers who will be eligible to go ring net fishing are set out in clause 19(1)(a).

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions are directly relating to Part 3, subpart 1, and clauses 27 and 28, so both around “Application for permit” and “Director-General may seek further information”. Now I’m wondering and really keen to hear very clearly from the Minister about what was—or is there—a due diligence process when it comes to permits or exemptions under this bill. Now, I’m asking that because it’s not quite clear from the information what the scope is of what the director-general could ask for, because it’s extremely broad. Is that the intent?

Secondly, does any company or individual with permits or exemptions under this bill have any record of poor compliance records or Fisheries Act prosecutions? I think it would be really comforting for the public, particularly all those who are really concerned about the ring-net exemptions, if the Minister could confirm that there has been due diligence that has been applied to this bill as a whole, but particularly as pertains to permits and exemptions under the bill, which are in these clauses.

I think, as well, what would be really good to know is, if it did emerge that there were any poor compliance records or even prosecutions that have been made against individuals or companies that are given these permits or exemptions through this bill, what that would mean in terms of if they do have existing permits or exemptions. Would the Minister actually take action in response to those, to ensure that the community can trust that there are, essentially, actors doing the business and not acting in bad faith when it comes to permits or exemptions under the bill? I’d really like to hear a response from the Minister on those things. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, Madam Chair.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I represent the Māori electorate seat of Hauraki-Waikato. That geographically covers the whole Hauraki and the whole of Waikato from Papakura all the way down to Te Awamutu.

I just will be referring to some of the amendments and asking questions that I have made on Part 3, clause 28 and clause 29. Some of my tabled amendments today are around clause 28 and clause 28(1): replace “the Director-General may” with “the Director-General must”. In clause 28(1)(b), after “consult”, insert “relevant mana whenua, including”. Then, in clause 29(d), after “activity”, insert “through engagement with relevant mana whenua”.

These amendments ensure that there is a mandatory consultation process and when, giving permits, this process must consult with mana whenua, because I know for a fact that when whānau go for a dive or are fishing together kaimoana or kai for kaupapa or tangihanga, they will be the ones that will be criminalised and fined rather than the big corporate commercial fishing companies who exploit our taonga and kai.

These amendments are designed to ensure mana whenua have input into these applications for permits to undergo fishing and diving throughout the moana. These amendments follow on from points raised in submissions by a number of Hauraki iwi and also consider critical feedback on the bill by Te Ohu Kaimoana. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill, in line with concerns raised—for example, Hauraki Māori Trust Board and Te Ohu Kaimoana. These amendments proposed in response to the need to ensure that new breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi occur for Hauraki iwi towards a sustainable management of the moana.

I do have quite a long set of questions that I want to ask the Minister as well, on mana whenua involvement. They all relate to clause 29 and clause 28 in Part 3. On mana whenua involvement, how does this bill, in its current form, ensure that mana whenua have genuine input into decisions about activities in the moana? Why should mana whenua not be explicitly named as groups the director-general must consult with, rather than leaving it to discretion? What safeguards exist in the current bill to protect whakapapa relationships with the moana?

On decision-making powers, why is the director-general only permitted rather than required to seek further information and consult mana whenua before granting permits? Should such significant powers be exercised without mandatory engagement with those who hold kaitiakitanga? On Te Tiriti o Waitangi, what steps have been taken to ensure that no new breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will occur under this bill? Given the concerns raised by Hauraki iwi and Te Ohu Kaimoana, how can the Crown justify proceeding without stronger Tiriti-based protections? How does this bill recognise the rights and responsibilities of mana whenua, as granted under Te Tiriti?

On proposed amendments, why would Parliament resist changing the wording from “may” to “must” in clauses that deal with consultation and information gathering? How does inserting “relevant mana whenua” into clause 28(1)(b) strengthen decision making? Why is engagement with mana whenua not already required when considering biodiversity impacts and other effects under clause 29? On accountability and sustainability, with the last 30 seconds: what mechanisms in the bill ensure accountability to iwi and hapū, who will most be affected by these decisions?

Without these amendments, how can Parliament guarantee sustainable management of the moana that is consistent with tikanga and kaitiakitanga? The last question for the Minister: do current provisions go far enough to balance Crown authority with iwi rights and responsibilities? Tēnā rā koe.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, have some questions specific to clause 27 in subpart 1 of Part 3, particularly to clause 27(2)(c), and that is around “the anticipated effects of the proposed activity”. Subpart 1, clause 27, around the “Application for permit”, lays out the process by which a person applies to the director-general for a permit to be authorised to undertake the prohibited activity within the protected area, and subclause (2) sets out what the application needs to include.

My question is around whether the director-general would be required to look at the impacts around bycatch. I specifically raise this because conservationists have said in the public domain that ring netting is also indiscriminate when it comes to a form of fishing; that while it targets small bait fish—which in itself is an issue, because species like snapper rely on the small bait fish, so that’s a separate issue—but that there is bycatch. Other species, like sea birds, rays, and other fish species, are often ensnared in these large nets and killed. The purpose, again, of the high protection area is to protect the biodiversity within it, so my question to the Minister is whether he would consider a change to require the director-general to look at the anticipated effects that include the bycatch in those areas—anticipated bycatch—before a permit can be granted.

My second question is to do with clause 28(1)(c), which allows the director-general to commission any report that the director-general considers appropriate when deciding whether to grant the permit or not. Again, I would like to ask the Minister, firstly, what reports he would anticipate a director-general would require or commission, and whether he would move to or consider an amendment that would require the director-general to commission a report to look at the impact on biodiversity objectives, including anticipated bycatch in that area?

My third question to the Minister is on clause 28(2). This is the subclause where “The applicant must pay the costs associated with the Director-General’s inquiries under this section in the manner provided in the regulations.” That has been deleted, and I would like to ask the Minister why that has been removed?

I do have a few more questions, but those relate to parts that are further on, so I will stop here and hope the Minister answers these questions.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from my colleague, I’m also asking questions about subpart 1, regarding permits. For context, in clause 27(1), “A person may apply to the Director-General for a permit authorising the person to undertake a prohibited activity within a protected area.” To understand what those are, we need to go back to Part 2. Those prohibited activities are: “set netting”, “potting that occurs within Area A on Survey Office Plan [etc., etc.] shown as the area with diagonal lines”, and “bottom longlining that occurs within Area A …”—so, set netting, potting, and longlining.

Now, if we go further down subpart 1, we find “Decision of Director-General”, on page 22, clause 30: “[The Director-General] After considering an application for a permit and any further information … may grant the permit, if satisfied that …”—among other things in clause 30(1)(b)—“ … the activity is necessary;”. I want to prosecute the word “necessary”, Minister. Whenever do you envisage that it will be necessary to permit set netting, potting, and bottom longlining in a high protected area? What is the definition that you will use to evaluate that it is necessary to do those things? It completely contradicts, surely, the purpose of the legislation.

My question is: what are the things that you would deem as rendering it necessary to allow not only ring net fishing in these areas but also set netting, potting, and bottom longlining?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a few questions from me on Part 3. One is the continuation of a discussion we were having in Part 2 around the grandparenting of the ring-netting—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): But a new point relating to a clause in Part 3.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: But it is related, because the bill is just one bill—it’s very definitely a new point. The Minister said that the director-general would write to them, but I’m wondering if he would also consider, in clause 34—so on pages 24 and 25 of his Amendment Paper 260—adding a new paragraph (c) to say “and the permit holder is not authorised under section 19A” to make it clear that those new clause 19A authorisations cannot be transferred under what will become section 34. So that’s one question, if he’d consider that. That, I think, would be clearer than his answer, which is on the Hansard—which I appreciate—that the director-general would write a letter about that issue.

Now, moving on then to offences, at what will be new section 41, “Offence to undertake prohibited activity within protected area”, the punishment has changed quite dramatically here. It was “a fine not exceeding $100,000:”, and now there’s an option of still having that fine, or “a sentence of community work.”, and, of course, the sentence of community work seems quite different than a fine of $100,000. So I was wondering if the Minister could comment on why that change has been made. Those are two questions.

Moving on now into regulations, and these start at page 36, there’s a general regulatory power that hasn’t changed at clause 65, but then there are some changes at clause 66, which is “Regulations for biodiversity objectives and associated restrictions”. The one that I’m particularly interested in, and it relates back to questions I’ve had on both Part 1 and Part 2, but this is specifically on Part 3, is at clause 66(2). There’s been a change so that the Minister must be “satisfied that—", and there’s a deletion of paragraph (a), which is the requirement that the Minister has to consult with the Minister for fisheries. Why I’m interested in this is that the Minister hasn’t clearly answered my other questions about whether or not this—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could you just repeat the last piece of what you said you were specifically referring to, as the Minister is just looking—

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, I’m on page 37 of the Amendment Paper, and there was a requirement at clause 66(2)(a) that the Minister for fisheries be consulted, but that has been deleted on the Amendment Paper and I’m asking why it’s been deleted. Is that because with the other changes in the definitions of who the Minister is, the Minister administrating this Act can now be the Minister of fisheries, and is it, in fact, the intent that the Minister administrating this Act is the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and not the Minister for Conservation? Is that the reason for paragraph (a) being deleted, because if it is the changes in Part 1 and Part 2 that enable the Prime Minister to decide who the Minister in charge of this piece of legislation is—if that enables it to be either the Minister of Conservation, the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, or some other Minister, then shouldn’t there be a requirement for whoever that Minister is to consult with the other one?

So if the Minister in charge of this legislation is the conservation Minister, then they must consult with the oceans and fisheries Minister. But if this bill now enables the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries to be the Minister in charge of this bill, shouldn’t there be a requirement, then, for that Minister to consult the Minister of Conservation? That is my question on that regulation.

I’ve got some more questions. But I see that the Minister is eager to answer, so I will defer to him.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Madam Chair, thank you for this chance to respond to various questions. In relation to clause 27, the information required will be provided on the Department of Conservation (DOC) website. It is an operational matter, but the form of the application or the materials that will be needed will be set out on the DOC website.

In relation to whether or not the Director-General is required to consider bycatch impacts, no, not for issuing an authorisation for ring net fishing, but they will be considered at the three-yearly review.

The types of reports the director-general might consider when considering a permanent application, that’s on a case-by-case basis that are relevant to that application. It’s not required by the bill.

Cost recovery: why was that deleted? It was deemed not necessary, as the ability to cost recover on the bill is actually set out in the Conservation Act 1987. There are a number of questions in regard to safeguards around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and various kaitiakitanga aspirations. There have been changes made into the Act that’s set out in clause 4(2) around signposting and signalling how we would like to see Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities—Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities—carried out, and you’ll see them well articulated both in clauses 4, 5A, and 8.

Yes, iwi—oh, sorry, a comment on Te Ohu Kaimoana. The advice I’ve received is generally that Te Ohu Kaimoana is comfortable with the direction of travel. Of course, they’ve written or communicated with officials and others around their expectations going forward, and many of those expectations, I understand, have been met. There is a significant commitment, within the coalition Government and within this bill, to uphold Te Tiriti settlements. That’s in clause 8A.

The information the Director-General of Conservation can ask for when considering a permanent application in relation to ring net fishers is all set out in clause 19A. How many authorised ring net fishers will there be, and will this number grow in the future? For the 16th time around these discussions, we’ve said it’s up to five, because that’s the number that have the fisheries number now, and that’s set out in clause 19A.

Hon Members: No, it’s not.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, the fishers that are able to apply are set out in clause 19A.

Now, you want to know the number and the identity. I’ve said four times today that we will not be giving that to you. We will not be announcing that. Of course, there are privacy issues that are attached to that.

In relation to clause 41, there is optionality given that it’s a strict liability arrangement, so the amendment enables a little bit more granularity of response in the enforcement process, particularly given the strict liability arrangements therein.

There are a couple of other questions that were asked. The expectation around consulting with mana moana or mana whenua: I think that the practice of the decision maker, in that regard, will be influenced heavily by the references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi in both this proposed legislation and also the Conservation Act 1987.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick clarification on what the Minister just said in his response around clause 28(2), which is the removal of the cost recovery requirement. So is the Minister saying that the taxpayer now has to pay for individuals to get a permit to fish in a high protection area? I think that is quite unfair, but I just want clarification around that.

My second question is to do with clause 32, which lays out the revocation of permit or amendment to permit conditions due to adverse effects and other grounds. This clause lays out the grounds under which the director-general may revoke a permit at any time if certain conditions are not met. So clause 32(a) states that the director-general can revoke a permit if it’s “causing adverse effects to the protected area that are greater than those anticipated at the time the permit was granted”. That relates to my previous question around the anticipated effects of the proposed activity and whether that will include a projection on the bycatch that will be caught in the method of fishing that is allowed now in these two high protection areas (HPAs).

My second question around that, though, is how would the director-general monitor this, because the review period for the specific permit regime is, from what the Minister said previously—I can’t find the clause in here, but from what the Minister said, it’s three years. So if there are specific changes that contribute to a further degradation of those two HPAs within that three-year period, and before the review takes place, how will the director-general be able to determine this in order to be able to then revoke a permit based on those adverse effects?

That actually also relates to clause 32(b), which states that it could be revoked if it’s inconsistent with the biodiversity objectives for the protected area in a manner that wasn’t anticipated. So, same question there: will bycatch be involved in that determination as well, and if so, how will the director-general be able to reasonably determine that?

My next question is around clause 41, which is under “Offences”, and I note that clause 41(3)(b) is new. That is around the sentence of community work: a person who commits an offence referred to in subsection (1) or subsection (2) is liable on conviction to just a fine not exceeding $100,000, but it could be either a fine or a sentence of community work. That seems to be a weakening of that particular offence protection, and so I’d like the Minister to answer why that is.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Mr Chair. I responded to the question around the offences before and the fines or alternatively a community-based sentence, and it was omitted by mistake. I understand it was already approved by Cabinet. However, a strict liability offence providing optionality for responding to that is a very good thing.

There was a question around whether or not the Minister of Conservation would need to consult with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. The Minister of Conservation is the Minister responsible for this bill, and this drafting aligns with the Legislation Act.

Amendments to ensure permits can’t be transferred: the ring net fishing provision is set out in Part 2. Clause 34 would not allow for a ring net fishing provision to be transferred. The director-general authorises it. It’s under a different regime in the bill.

In response to members’ questions about what might be considered necessary in a high protection area (HPA), there could be research, there could be restoration activities and a number of things that may be necessary in an HPA that is enabled through that.

In terms of cost recovery and taxpayers, no, there’s no cost to the taxpayer for ring net fishing authorisations. They are not permits under Part 3 of the bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to come back to clause 67 because I have some further questions for the Minister of Conservation on a different section of this clause.

I’m going to start with clause 67(2)(a)(ii)—I love reading this legislation when my eyes are starting to get a little bit older. It states here that the regulations made under subsection (1) “must provide for … restrictions relating to the species of fish that an authorised person may target, which may be all or any of the following species only: (A) kahawai: (B) grey mullet: (C) trevally”. I have an amendment to this clause, and this is a really good reason why it’s frustrating to have amendments like this come through the committee stage and not at select committee—because we can dig in with the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) at select committee around whether the actual wording in the clause will reach its intention.

My amendment would be to change in the second sentence the part that says, “which may be all” to “which must be all”. My concern is that when it says “which may be all or any of the following”, could that actually be interpreted to allow for other species of fish to be fished as a fishing activity by those who have been authorised to undertake ring net fishing in one of these two high protection areas? My first question to the Minister is: would he consider supporting my amendment? I’d love it if he could talk to PCO around whether that wording is actually tight enough to achieve the intent, which I believe is that only those three species can be targeted. The use of the word “must” would be a very minor amendment and would actually strengthen it and it would ensure that only those three fish can be targeted with that permitted fishing activity.

My second question is also related to clause 67(2)(b), which says that, again, the regulations made under subsection (1) “may provide for any other restrictions or conditions that apply to an authorised person undertaking ring net fishing that the Ministers consider necessary.” My question for the Minister is: can he give some examples of what those other restrictions or conditions could be? Has he received advice on what they would be? How would they be enacted? Would it be through secondary legislation, through regulation? It’s quite a broad clause. Again, I just note that this is why we get frustrated when large amendments that are quite substantial get dropped in the committee stage. They could even actually go back to select committee just for a week to allow for those of us on this side of the House who haven’t had the opportunity to ask PCO what the intent behind that particular part of the clause is.

Those are my two questions to the Minister. Would he consider my amendment, because I think it would strengthen it, would give that certainty that it’s only those three species that can be fished? Secondly, can he give us some more detail around the intent and the advice he’s received under clause 67(2)(b) and how those restrictions or conditions could be applied? Thank you, Mr Chair.

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to pick up specifically on quite a substantial part of the bill, which is on page 40, and it’s new clause 68A, which involves “Ministerial review of ring net fishing provisions”. I’m wanting to pick up on this particularly, because there actually is a way within this provision to offer all of those people out there, particularly the communities around Tīkapa Moana, the Hauraki Gulf, some form of assurance and transparency as part of this process. What this specific clause outlines is that the Minister and the Minister actually responsible for the administration of the Fisheries Act 1996 must actually initiate a review of the operations of this ring net fishing, which are contained in this amendment, before the expiry of three years from the commencement of this Act. Now, what I would propose to the Minister is to seriously consider changing that to one year.

The reason why I think he should do that is because of all of the concern that’s been going on with the communities and the fact that, as he’s reiterated, he’s had different advice from officials that no longer says that these protections would undermine the purpose of the Act, that apparently the advice now says that these ring net fishing exemptions might have minimal impact on biodiversity. We’re really keen to see that, and we haven’t actually heard the Minister address directly whether he will share that information.

One way he could do that is by actually initiating this review earlier. The key part about it is it actually looks at those costs and benefits of the ring net fishing provisions. Particularly with that $14,000 in revenue that we’ve heard in the media and talked about in the committee of the whole stage, if there is counter evidence, then we would like to be able to see that really weighed up in an actually sound, considered way so that the public and all of those people who have been involved in this process for so many years actually have transparency about it.

The critical part of it, as well, is that it allows, in this ministerial review, those Ministers to then recommend, in response to that, whether these ring net fishing provisions should actually be retained, should they be amended, or should they even be repealed.

The Minister has been really clear all along that this has been a number of compromises that he’s had to make. Presumably he wants to be open and transparent with the public about the actual advice and evidence he’s been given to make these compromises. Would he consider changing the review timetable within this clause to earlier? I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. We're very confident that a review take place—in answer to an earlier question around a sunset clause, that's not the position. We will be undertaking a review, and we welcome that as a pragmatic way to get on with the mahi.

In relation to clause 67(2), the proposed amendment will require that all three species should be targeted, whereas the earlier drafting meant it could be limited to one or two of the species.

How will any adverse effects to high protection areas from ring net fishing be addressed before the three-year review? There'll be enforcement and monitoring of the protections provided by the bill. This includes the high protection areas where the ring net provision is provided for. It takes time for these effects to be clear and reviewing after three years, informed by monitoring, will help that.

Restrictions or conditions that could be for ring net fishers—well, those are well set up: one vessel at a time, it must be less than six metres, and stay within the vicinity of the net while fishing. Unlike some of the reports with trawlers splayed all over photos, that's not what it is. It's just diversionary malarkey.

In regards to considering reducing the three-year review period to one year, well, we've got to take time to review the activities and the protection, and it's appropriate that it takes place after three years.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for answering some questions on this part. I note that I haven’t heard any comment on my suggestion that the transfer clause could be amended to exclude clause 19A. That’s excluding specifically making it clear, in the transfer clause, that the ring net fishing exemption can’t be transferred. I also heard, in the Minister’s responses, that the Minister of Conservation is in charge of this bill. But, back in Part 1, the definition of “Minister” has changed so that it can be whoever the Prime Minister gives the delegation to. Regardless, even if the Minister is right and if he could explain why, then, there’s that change in definition, that would be useful. But why would you not want the Minister of Conservation to consult the Minister for fisheries and vice versa? If the Minister of fisheries has, in fact, got the delegation for this Act, surely you would want the Minister of fisheries to consult the Minister of Conservation.

Moving on, I’m interested in replacement clause 67 in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. This has been deleted, and it’s been replaced with another clause, but it just relates, as the Minister’s discussed, to ring net fishing, which is quite different, so it’s been replaced by something quite different. Clause 67, which has been deleted, allowed for regulations that looked at additional management and was related to the biodiversity objectives. We had some discussion in Part 2 about the biodiversity objectives, and the Minister named a whole lot of people in the Chamber, and I asked and didn’t get an answer, but it’s relevant to this part as well: was the long list of people that he named all endorsing these changes to the biodiversity objectives? That’s relevant to clause 67 as well. Or are they just good people who do good things in this area? These are two quite different things. Then he might want to comment as well going further through to 67, which my colleague Rachel Boyack was just talking about. That also requires that those regulations must provide for the period of time—and there’s a season there, being 1 March and ending on 31 August. Is there anything particular to that, or is it standard practice, the season there? You might want to comment.

Then going further, we had some questions from Lan Pham on clause 68A of the Minister’s Amendment Paper, but I’m quite interested in 68B. This is an Order in Council repealing the ring net fishing provisions, and it does seem to be a “King Henry VIII” clause. What that means is that a regulation—so not the statute—suddenly can be made that amends the statute.

Hon Simon Watts: This was discussed at select committee.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing that it’s been—

Rachel Boyack: It didn’t go to select committee. That’s the point.

Hon Simon Watts: It’s filibustering.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m now being accused of filibustering, and they’re saying that it went to select committee. Of course, I’m looking at the underlined things that are in the—

Hon Simon Watts: The member knows it. She wrote the bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —I’m looking at the Amendment Paper rather than the bill as reported back from the select committee. That is the difference. Thank you to the member opposite there for proclaiming that I wrote the bill. Whilst I certainly had some involvement in the progress of this bill and the introduction of this bill when I was the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, I cannot claim to have written it. It has, of course, been the work of many people over, as we know, at least a decade. Well done to all of them.

Hon Simon Watts: Here we go. You used to support it. How things change.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m now being told that we should support it, and, of course, we are supporting the bill, but the bill has been amended, and it’s been amended for these ring net fishers but also around these biodiversity objectives as well, so I’m wanting some clarity on whether the people who the Minister named before are supporting those changes to the biodiversity objectives. Are they supporting the changes to the ring net fishing, or do they have the position that I have, which is that we want this bill to pass. It is a good bill, but the Minister has made some bad changes which have delayed this whole process by over a year. Could he answer my questions, please?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): As I mentioned earlier, and as I’m sure members will be aware, iwi leaders are quite accustomed to various compromises in legislative and regulatory processes. Iwi leaders that I’ve engaged with are absolutely opposing more regulatory bureaucratic noise coming in over the top of customary fishing. They do not want more regulation from the Kāwanatanga over and above the tikanga practices of going out to gather kai. That’s why we are retaining the location of customary fishing alongside the Fisheries Act rather than keeping more regulatory noise on top of customary fishing by way of this Act. It’s not necessary for clause 34 to say that ring net fishing cannot be transferred, as ring net fishing is not a permit.

I’m happy to note that, in relation to clause 68B, there may be an option in time for the Governor-General to pass that Order in Council made on our recommendations to discontinue ring net fishing, and that may happen. Let’s wait and see.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I might just note that interjections from one side or the other normally don’t introduce new material, but when they’re done in a very loud and informed voice it may well be that they are actually adding new material that might prolong the debate.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. We have appreciated having the Minister of Climate Change here chirping away. Last time we saw him in the Chamber, he was reading out a bill to bring back oil and gas exploration. It is funny that it’s the Minister of Climate Change who is complaining about us forgetting what the environment is—but, anyway, it's nice to have you here, Minister, and thank you, Mr Chair.

I have two very quick points, actually, to make. My first one, before I get to the substantive one at new clause 68A, is to clarify my question, which was not answered by the Minister. The Minister answered as to when permits would be issued and said that the purpose of those permits could be scientific experimentation, for example. All well and good; no one's going to have an issue with that, I can imagine, so long as it's done in a way that remediates and doesn't harm. My specific question was that, in that clause 27(1), there is permission for permits to be issued to undertake prohibited activities in a high protection area, and those prohibited activities are listed at clause 15(1A): set netting, potting, and bottom longlining. My question was: under what circumstances would it ever be deemed necessary to permit set netting, potting, and longlining in a high protected area? That was the specific question. I wasn't asking about research permitting; I was asking when it would ever be necessary—the word “necessary” coming from Part 3, on page 22. That's my clarification.

Now, to new clause 68A, on page 40, Mr Chair and Minister, subclause (5): “The Ministers must ensure that, as part of the review, there is reasonable opportunity for interested persons (including Te Ohu Kai Moana) to make submissions on the operation of the ring net fishing provisions.” Why, Minister, is Te Ohu Kaimoana explicitly singled out, and is there any relationship between the naming of Te Ohu Kaimoana and the fact that, on 26 September, there was a meeting between Minister Jones and Te Ohu Kaimoana that preceded your decision to change this legislation to allow ring net fishing, which you did three days later on 30 September?

Is there a relationship between that meeting between Minister Jones and Te Ohu Kaimoana and the Minister’s decision to change to permit ring net fishing in the high protected area and now the Minister's specific setting out of the requirement that if there is any review of ring net fishing, it must include consultation with Te Ohu Kaimoana? Why are they explicitly named, Minister?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): I’ve got two specific questions for the Minister, and they relate to new clause 68A(3)(a)(i) and (ii)—those are the specific clauses and subclauses that I’m looking at. That’s, basically, around the ministerial review of the ring net fishing provisions. This particular clause lays out the detail with regard to that review. With subclause (3), it basically says that the review must assess “the costs and benefits of the ring net fishing provisions and, to the extent practicable, the fishing undertaken in reliance on those provisions; and”— secondary to that—“the effect of the ring net fishing provisions on the relevant high protection areas and any biodiversity objectives for those areas;”.

My question to the Minister is: why is there the hierarchy of those two specific aspects that the review needs to assess, and whether, as the Minister of Conservation, he is comfortable with the fact that the effect on the biodiversity objectives—which, I would have thought, should be the principal focus of the review—is subsidiary or secondary to the cost-benefit analysis? Can he explain the thinking behind that, the rationale for that, and whether, as conservation Minister, he is comfortable with the focus on conservation coming secondary to the cost-benefit analysis?

The second question that I have for the Minister is around new clause 68A(3)(b)(ii), which is what happens if the Minister is not satisfied with the review and the recommendations that could be the outcome of that. Now, I understand paragraphs (i) and (iii), where the recommendation could be either that the ring net fishing provisions are “retained” or they are “repealed”; I don’t understand the second paragraph, in terms of it being “amended”. I ask the Minister to clarify what the options are that he foresees with regard to new clause 68A(3)(b)(ii). In what circumstances does he think that the ring net fishing provisions could be amended, given the outcomes of the review? What are the options for the amendment therein, and, I guess, what does he anticipate would come out of this particular subclause?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): In response to why Te Ohu Kaimoana were specified for consultation for a ring net fishing review, Te Ohu Kaimoana were specified for consultation for when it’s in doubt. But the clause provides that all interested parties must be given an opportunity to submit, and we on this side think it’s appropriate for a peak Māori fisheries body who’s responsible for the advocacy of Māori fishing to be engaged in that review.

The fishing season specified in the bill—what is it based on, and is it standard? From 1 March to 31 August is the standard ring net fishing season, and the bill will ensure that that fishing does not occur outside of that timetable.

Under what circumstances might potting, bottom longlining, or set-netting be necessary in a high protection area? I don’t anticipate there being a reason to permit. However, the legislation provides for this to be considered on a case by case basis. The restrictions in the bill would ensure that this couldn’t be for commercial purposes.

In relation to the amendment to clause 68A(3)(b)(ii), there might be a range of reasons to amend—for example, the months of the season might be reconsidered in due course. Kia ora.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'm not hearing a lot of new stuff coming. But Rachel Boyack is nodding away like she might have found some new—

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Oh, Mr Chair, I do have something quite specific, because the Minister responded to my question about a tabled amendment earlier, but, actually, in his response I believe he referenced the wrong use of the word “may” in the clause. So I wanted to clarify this because in that particular clause, the word “may” is referenced twice, and I think he was referring to the first use of it and not the second. The amendment has been tabled on the Table—

Hon Member: New material.

RACHEL BOYACK: —so I’m going to read it out in context, and I do note there’s a bit of chat on the other side. This is a really genuine question to actually strengthen the protections in this bill, and that is what we do at select committee. So I’m just going to read what my amendment would actually change it to. Clause 67(2) would say, “Regulations made under subsection (1)—(a) must provide for … (ii) restrictions relating to the species of fish that an authorised person may target, which must be all or any of the following species only:”.

When I use the word “must”, that is a change from the word “may” that is there. It wasn’t to say that an authorised person must target, which would imply that you’re targeting all three, and I accept that that was what the Minister said. What my amendment would do would state it must be all or any of the following species only, because my question to the Minister was could it be read more broadly, and if he doesn’t want to support my amendment now that I’ve just clarified which word I wanted to actually change—because I recognise the word was referenced twice in the particular clause. If not, can he make sure it’s very clear on the Hansard in case it were to come up in the courts, that it would only be kahawai, grey mullet, and trevally that are able to be targeted.

I just wanted to clarify when the Minister responded to my suggested amendment, I think he probably hadn’t actually seen the written amendment that I’d proposed in context, so I just wanted to give him that opportunity to respond. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a short call from me to clarify two points. One was that I still haven’t got an answer around the Ministers, both the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and the Minister of Conservation, being involved—number one.

The second one is that, I think, in one of the Minister’s answers he was responding to my question about the iwi leaders, the kaitiaki, who he’s referenced in an earlier part of the debate. He said, “They don’t want restrictions.”—is what he said generally. My question actually is a specific one, and that is: the people that he named, those kaitiaki, the iwi leaders, do they agree with all of these amendments that he has made? My question is then: has he asked them specifically if they agree with these amendments or is he making an assumption that, with his many years’ involvement with this part of the country, they will be happy with his amendments around the biodiversity objectives? It’s a very simple question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): In response to various questions: a hierarchy of the two aspects that the review needs to address—there is no hierarchy.

In response to what changes might be made: I think I mentioned it, but there might be only one—or stricter conditions like only one fish being targeted.

In response to the question around iwi leaders, certainly the iwi leaders want to see a tripling of the marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf. They do not want regulators and legislators to be coming in over the top, hot as anything to say, “This is what you must do to enable biodiversity.” Hence why I've mentioned four times now that the customary fishing arrangements will remain within the Fisheries Act and not be inundated with further bureaucratic and statutory noise. We're here to triple the marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf – te Pataka kai o Tikapa Moana Te Moananui ā Toi

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

That's what we're here to do, and I look forward to it.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending clause 30, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending paragraph (c) in clause 32, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, replacing “except” with “including” in paragraph (b) of clause 66(1), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, inserting new paragraph (a) in clause 66(2), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, inserting new subparagraph (iii) in clause 66(2)(b), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, deleting the amendment to replace clause 67, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, replacing “which may be all or any” with “which must be all or any” in proposed subparagraph (ii) in clause 67(2)(a), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, replacing “3 years” with “1 year” in subclause (2) of proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending subclause (2) of proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending subclause (3) of proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending subclause (5) in proposed new clause 68A, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260, amending paragraph (b) in proposed new clause 68B(2), be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Agreement not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Marama Davidson’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 260 deleting proposed new clauses 67, 68A, and 68B is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper No 260 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 349 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s tabled amendments to clause 28(1) and paragraph (d) in clause 29 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 261 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 3 set out on Amendment Paper 261 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 261 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 5

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 5 set out on Amendment Paper 349 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”, and the principal Act.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. The title of this bill has been a long time coming—we’ve traversed this quite a bit on this side of the Chamber. It has been over a decade in the making with a number of stakeholders at various levels. Local and central government, iwi, hapū and whānau, conservationists, the fishing industry have all come together over a long period of time, and this is one part of what was agreed to, but the sea-change process has led to this bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, as it claims to be and as it was prior to the 11th hour amendments that this Minister has brought to the House and that we have debated.

All this Government has done is delay the passage of this bill, one that they said they were going to accelerate prior to the last election. All they’ve done is delay it over the last two years. They have weakened it as a result of those 11th hour amendments. We have drilled into the rationale, the evidence, and the justification for weakening protections within supposed high protection areas that are meant to enhance the biodiversity objectives in a gulf that is degrading. The Minister in the chair has been unable to respond to those questions and provide any sort of justification that would give those of us on this side of the Chamber or, indeed, outside of this building any comfort that it was actually justified, the weakening of protections that were laid out in a bill was worked on and then considered in detail by the Environment Committee.

The recommendation to this committee was to pass the bill with no substantive change. For that to then change in the 11th hour, we would have thought that there would be some strong justification from the Minister, but we have not seen any of that, so I would argue that the name of this bill is no longer justified. While it does go some way towards, or a significant way still towards, protecting the Hauraki Gulf, all of the protections in the bill that was drafted and introduced by Labour in Government—the only step that this Government has taken is to weaken it. What they’ve done is to put the fishing lobby interests before marine protections, and that’s down to the conservation Minister in the Chamber along with the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. All they’ve done is pander to the interests of the fishing lobby. All they’ve done is take us backwards on marine protections.

I would argue that the name of this bill should be changed to the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Weakens Marine Protection Bill”. While, in our entirety, we are supporting this bill because it goes some way to protecting the gulf based on the changes that we brought in and based on the work that many have done over the years, this Government cannot take credit for that, because the only contribution that they’ve made to this is to delay the passage and weaken the intent of this bill. It could be the “Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Puts Fishing Lobby Interests Ahead of Marine Protections Bill”. I would probably accept that as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’m sorry to the speaker. I’ll have to now report progress at this time. The member will have the opportunity to resume her speech when this bill is considered next. Time has come for me to report progress.

Debate interrupted.

Progress to be reported.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave to correct the vote on amendment 260.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. There’s no objection. You may correct that.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thirty-four votes were cast in favour, and they should have been cast opposed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Do we know what we’re talking about here? Let’s make sure that we’ve got the right amendment. This is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 260 be agreed to. The result should have been—

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No. Thirty-four votes opposed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That will be amended accordingly. Actually, I did note that it is already recorded as opposed—68 for and 54 against.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: We’re all good then.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Belt and braces perhaps.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Public Works (Critical Infrastructure) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also furthered considered the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill and reports it has made no progress on that bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m.